B 


ij 


i 


iliiii  i 


\  CF  PR///, 


.V 


CHRISTIAN    APOLOGETICS.  V^ 


^K'CV?5  19' 


^GiCALGeV 


THE   LECTURES  CONS'lTTU  IING    11  IF,    COURSE    IN 


ETHICS  AND  APOLOGETICS. 


/ 

PROF.  CHAS.  A.  'AIKEN,  D.  D, 


FOR    THK 


MIDDLH  AND  SENIOR  CLASSES. 


PRINCKTON     ThHOLOGICAL     SkMINARY. 


EDITED    FOR    THK  CLASS    OF    1880. 


PRINTED.     NOT    PUBLISHED. 


PRINCE  TON: 

FRBSS    PKINTINU    ESTABLISH UBMT. 

1879. 


No  man,  whether  learned  or  unlearned, 
can  have  the  faith  which  makes  him  a  Christian, 
without  having  a  reason  for  it — Thos.  Chalmers. 


CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETICS. 

PROLEGOMENA. 


INTRODUCTION. 


"  To  believe  in  Christianity,  without  knowing  why  we  believe  it,  is  not 
Christian  faith,  but  blind  credulity." — Whately. 

"  Though  we  cannot  always  give  a  reason  for  ic/tai  we  believe,  we 
should  give  a  reason  v-hy  we  believe  it." — Boyle. 

"  Be  ready  always  to  give  an  answer  to  every  one  that  asketh  you  a 
reason  of  the  hope  that  is  in  you."  —  1  Peter  iii,  15. 

To  him  who  would  approach  the  subject  of  Christian 
Apologetics,  two  introductory  questions  suggest  them- 
selves : 

1.  Why  do  I  believe  that  I  am  a  Christian  ? 

2.  Why  am  I  a  Cliristiai\  in  my  belief? 

These  questions  differ  more  in  meaning  than  in  lan- 
guage. The  first  looks  for  its  answer  to  the  past  :  and 
personal  and  sacred  experiences  are  recalled.  We  may 
answer 

a.  From  the  remembrance  ot  sudden  conversion  ;  of 
a  gradual  tendency  towards  Christ  from  early  education  : 
From  something  which  has  opened  the  blind  eyes,  or 
softened  the    heart. 

h.  Our  present  love  and  obedience  give  us  an  ad- 
ditional source  of  faith  in  the  fact  that  we  are  Christians. 
To  the  second  question,  why  ain  I  a  Christian  in  belief? 
and  not  a  Jew,  Pagan,  Atheist,  various  answers  may  be 
given. 

a.  Providential  reasons  may  have  decided  ;  early  edu- 
cation or  circumstances. 

But  you  must  be  able  to  point  to  some  elements  of 
Christianity  which  have  secured  your  deliberate  choice. 
You  cannot  say  as  a  rational  believer,  that  you  merely 
follow  the  faith  of  your  fathers. 

6.  You  may  say,  I  have  adopted  the  faith  of  Christen- 
dom as  that  of  the  enlightened  part  of  the  world. 


But  thi8  is  110  adequate  reason.  A  Christian  siionld 
be  able  to  give  some  sound  statement  of  the  reason  for 
demanding  the  same  faith  of  others.  Self  respect  re- 
quires that  we  give  a  reason.  Loyalty  to  our  fellow  men 
demands  it.  The  clearest  intelligence  on  all  matters  of 
religion  is  essential.  We  cannot  affect  to  be  ignorant  of 
these  great  questions.  All  men  are  in  a  sense  becoming 
inquirers.  Faith  in  Christianity  involves  intellectual 
elements,  and  there  are  reasons  why  we  turn  to  Jesus  as 
our  Savior. 

Our  work  gives  a  demand  for  convictions  of  the 
truths  of  Christianity,  "  I  speak  as  to  wise  men  :  judge 
ye  what  I  say  "  is  Paul's  statement.     (1  Cor.  10  :  15). 

Three  practical  ends   are   attained  by  the  study    of- 
Christian  Apologetics. 

(1.)  Justiticatiou  and  confirmation  of  our  own  faith 
as  Christians. 

(2.)  Our  better  qualification  to  commend  Christianity. 

(3.)  Our  fuller  confidence  to  defend  our  faith  from 
whatever  purpose  or  from  whatever  quarter  it  is  assailed. 

Definition. — («.)  "  Christian  Apologetics,  is  that  part 
of  Theology  which  vindicates  the  right  of  Theology  in 
general,  and  of  Christian  Theology  in  particular  to  exist 
as  a  science."     (Lindsay  in  Encyclopedia  Brit.) 

Note. — This  is  not  a  full  definition  and  provides  only 
for  Theological  and  not  for  practical  purposes. 

6.  "  That  branch  which  sets  forth  the  historical  cre- 
dentials of  Christianity. 

This  also  is  but  a  partial  definition. 

(c.)  "  The  science  which  sets  forth  the  principles  ac- 
cording to  which  Christianity  is  to  be  defended."  (Hagen- 
bach.) 

This  is  an  etymological  definition,  but  is  also  partial. 

(d.)  "  That  branch  of  Theological  Science,  which  sets 
forth  the  proofs,  that  the  claims  of  Christianity,  as  a  re- 
ligion, are  justified."  This  is  the  proper  and  correct 
definition.     It  is  more  than  a  mere  defense  of  truth. 

The  term  ApologeiUbs. — This  term  is  of  strictly  Scrip- 
tural derivation,  but  somewhat  infelicitous  on  account  of 
prejudices.  People  ask,  does  Christianity  need  an 
apology  ?  Christ  and  the  Apostles  did  not  apologise,  yet 
they  justified  and   defended  it.     They    used    the   term, 


d.7i<jXojia.     The    verb   dizoloyiofmc    means    to    defend,    to 
vindicate,  or  justify,  not  simply  to  apologise. 

A-oloyia  means  tlierefore  an  answer  which  may  be 
aggressive  as  well  us  defensive.  The  Apostle  Paul 
speaks  of  his  answer  [a.7:okoYco)  to  the  Jews.  Acts 
19  :  33 ;  Acts  22:1;  Acts  24 :  10 ;  Acts  25  :  8-16 ;  Acts 
26:  1,  2;  Acts  26:  24. 

The  relatke  position  of  Apolof/elics. — The  scientific  stnd}' 
of  Christian  Apologetics  is  of  recent  date,  of  this  cen- 
tury in  fact.  Though  there  is  a  unanimity  of  opinion 
respecting  the  necessity  of  it,  yet  there  is  :i  difference  in  re- 
gard to  its  relative  place  in  Theological  study.  Some 
would  put  it  in  Practical  Theology;  the  object  in  tliia 
view  is  to  fit  the  worker  for  defence;  but  Apologetics  is  not 
merely  the  training  for  a  Chi'istian  soldier;  it  is  for  every 
one.  Others  would  combine  it  with  Systematic  Theology. 
Its  specific  object,  and  the  fulness  and  variety  of  its  nui- 
terial,  claim  for  it  a  place  of  its  own,  and  an  early  place 
in  the  course  of  theological  studies;  for  unless  the 
claims  of  Christianity  as  a  religion  are  justified  the 
Christian  docti'ine  can  have  no  more  authority  than  other 
systems. 

JjUerature  of  Apologetics. — Manj^  works  called  apolo- 
gies are  specific  and  defensive  in  form,  taking  up  special 
points.  Many  of  these  aim  to  remove  practical  errors 
and  objections,  and  are  designed  to  meet  a  hostile  etate 
of  mind.  Christian  Apologetics  addresses  itself  to  the 
Christian  man,  with  tliis  implication,  that  what  binds  the 
Christian  should  bind  others.  In  our  day  religions  have 
been  compared  as  never  before.  Pli^'sical  and  Metaph3-si- 
cal  Science  are  constantly  opening  new  fields,  or  present- 
ing old  thoughts  in  new  forms.  These  must  l)e  noticed 
in  their  relations  to  Christian  Apologetics.  We  are  not 
bound  to  run  after  every  new  theory,  yet  tliere  are  times 
when  we  canr.ot  keep  silence.  Never  has  the  literature 
of  the  church,  so  largely  taken  the  Apologetic  form,  as 
at  the  present  time,  except  during  the  Second  Centurj-. 
The  Apologists  of  that  century,  aimed  at  practical  result 
with  tlae  Jews  and  heathen,  and  their  conversion  to 
Christianity.  So  in  the  Middle  Ages  a  special  object 
was  in  view.     [Vide  Farrar's  History  of  Free  Thought.) 

In  our  da}'  specific  attacks  have  brought  out  a  multi- 
tude of  treatises.     The  attention   of  men    has  been  di- 


8 

rected  to  the  divinity  of  Clirist;  again  to  Prophecy; 
again  to  miracles;  again  it  has  been  attempted  to  reduce 
Christianity  to  natural  religion.  The  XVIII.  century 
objected  that  its  founders  were  impostors ;.  the  XIX. 
century  talks  of  myths  and  mistakes.  Therefore  Apolo- 
getical  literature  is  largely  specitic,  a  body  of  apologizing 
rather  than  of  works  of  a  complete  and  comprehensive 
sort.  The  most  successful  way  to  retute,  is  not  to  try  to 
overthrow  the  error,  but  to  build  the  truth  into  a  system, 
in  which  the  skeptic  finds  himself  satisfied.  Our  great 
work  is  to  point  to  Christ.  For  our  own  satisfaction 
however,  we  must  have  both  the  power  to  refute  and  to 
build. 

Apologetics,  including  what  has  been  cnWed fundamental 
apologetics,  involves  the  whole  field  of  science.  It  eiiters 
into  every  department  of  knowledge.  For  example,  in 
Metaphysics  we  must  go  back  to  the  query,  is  there  such 
a  thing  as  human  knowledge  ?  If  so,  whait  are  its  limi- 
tations?— Is  there  any  knowledge  of  material  things  ? 
Can  we  have  any  knowledge  of  spiritual  things?  Does 
the  amount,  or  kind  of  evidence  justify  what  religion 
calls  for  ?  Such  are  some  of  the  questions  which  lie  back 
of  Christian  Apologetics.  In  another  direction  an  im- 
portant and  essential  consideration  is, 

The  kind  of  evidence : — What  can  be  known?  The 
facts  of  Christianity  are  various  and  must  be  established 
by  various  kinds  of  evidence.  Logic,  as  well  as  Meta- 
physics must  be  consulted.  If  there  is  a  God,  are  his 
revelations  genuine,  or  is  doubt  reasonable?  Where 
does  refusal  to  believe  convict  a  man  ?  These  are  ques- 
tions which  must  be  solved  to  get  at  some  forms  of  un- 
belief. 

We  shall  be  largely  occupied,  in  discussing  the  sub 
ject  of  Apologetics,  with  historical  evidence.  The  world 
has  been,  and  is  full  of  religions — Christianity  is  one  of 
them.  In  the  midst  of  conflicting  claims,  and  of  errone- 
ous systems,  we  find  this  to  be  the  claim  of  Christianity, 
and  this  is  the  proposition  which  we  are  to  examine  : 

Christianity  is  the  true,  divinely  sanctioned,  and 
authoritative  religion,  for  us,  and  for  all   men. 


CHRISTIANITY  AS  A  RELIGION. 

Christianity  is  a  religion,  bnt  not  the  only  religion. 
Judaism,  Molianimedanism,  Buddhism  and  a  host  of 
other  systems  are  religions.  All  these  are  species. 
Religion  in  itself  is  more  generic.  We  are  therefore  to 
inquire  into  the  relative  and  absolute  excellence  of 
Christianity  as  a  religion,  not  as  a  civilizing  power.  It 
vfould  be  unimportant  to  prove  that  it  is  a  civilizing 
power.  Christianity  is  to  be  asserted  as  the  true  religion, 
not  a  true  religion.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  are 
elements  of  truth  in  other  religions,  but  Christianity  is 
the  ti'iie  religion.  It  is  the  divinely  sanctioned  religion, 
not  a  divinely  sanctioned  religion.  Other  sanctions  have 
been  superseded  by  the  sanction  that  has  been  given  to 
Christianity.  It  is  the  authoritative  religion.  In  one 
sense  Ciiristianity  alone  is  a  religion,  because  it  alone 
tills  out  the  conception  of  religion.  Other  systems  do 
not  deserve  the  name.  But  this  leads  us  to  the  import- 
ant question,  what  is  religion?  And  more  specifically 
what  is  a  religion  ? 

We  may  give  three  distinct  methods  of  reaching  a 
definition  in  answering  this  question. 

(1)  The  Etymological  method.  Tliis  advances  us  but 
a  little  way.  Single  words  only  set  forth  one  side  :  one 
view.  Moreover  the  terms  have  had  a  hidden  origin, 
which  does  not  increase  our  confidence  in  them.  Fol- 
lowing this  method  we  have  the  term,  RelJgio,  according 
to  some  from  i-e(ir/ere,  meaning  "  to  reconsider,  to  review." 
(Cicero)  This  shows  that  the  aspect  of  religion  at  that 
time  was  a  careful,  scrupulous,  conscientious  reflection 
on  the  objects,  the  relations,  the  duties  with  which  reli- 
gion is  concerned.  Others  derive  the  word  from  religare, 
to  bind  back,  to  rebind  (Augustine  and  Lactantius)  but 
the  former  etymology  is  now  generally  accepted. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  corresponding  word  is 
6pr^a/£ta—Yk\e,  Acts  26  :  5  ;  Colos.  2:18;  Jas.  1  :  26,  27. 

Three  etj'mologies  are  given  of  this  Greek  term  : 

(a)  From  (fr)ai  an  obscure  derivation,  probably  the 
Thracian    mysteries.     (6)   From     Tf>i(o    to    tremble,     (c) 


10 

From  &pico  to  murrnnr.  Another  word  used  in  N,  T.  to 
designate  religion  is  8ecacdat{x6vca.  Vide,  Acts  17  :  22  : 
Acts  25  :  19. 

The  Old  Testament  contains  no  distinct  term.  It 
speaks  of  "  man's  walk  with  God,"  of  the  "  ways  of 
man,"  etc.,  and  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  religion  is  called 
"  wisdom."  Etymology  then  gives  us  little  help  in  ascer- 
taining the  true  significance  of  the  term. 

(2.)  The  Historical  Method. 

This  consists  in  taking  differpnt  religions  and  finding 
out  by  con)parison,  what  is  common  to  them  all,  and  so 
forming. a  generic  idea  of  religion,  or  in  taking  a  single 
religion,  and  eliminating  the  non-religions  elements  and 
thus  reaching  a  true  idea  of  the  term  religion.  The 
difficulty  with  this  method  is  the  wide  difference  between 
various  systems  of  religion. 

(3).  The  Inductive\\lethod. 

This  consists  in  studying  the  life  of  individual  reli- 
gions, or  religion  in  individuals. 

That  is  the  most  satisfactory  definition  which  is  pro- 
duced by  the  combination  of  more  than  one  of  these 
methods. 

Dt'Jimtioiis  of  Religio7i.  To  an  atheist  religion  is  an 
illusion,  an  error.  He  has  no  definition  to  give  to  reli- 
gion as  a  reality.  A  deist  does  not  deny  a  God,  but  he 
reduces  man's  relations  to  God  so  much,  that  he  can 
have  little  religion.  From  various  authorities  of  all 
shades  of  belief  we  quote  the  following  definitions  of 
Religion. 

"  The  observance  of  the  moral  law  as  a  divine  ordi- 
nance."— Kani. 

"  Faith  in  the  moral  order  of  the  universe." — Fichte. 

"  An  a  priori  theory  of  the  um\  evse."— Herbert  Spencer. 

"  Religion  is  a  mode  of  knowing  and  worshipping 
God." — 2'he  Reformers. 

"  Faith  in  the  reality  of  the  idea  of  God,  with  an  ap- 
propriate state  of  mind  and  mode  of  life." — Breischneider. 

"  The  relation  of  revelation  to  man,  and  of  man  to 
revelation." — Hartmann. 

"  The  relation  between  man  and  the  superhuman 
powers  in  which  he  believes." — Tiele. 

"  Man's  recognition  of  God,  and  his  way  of  manifest- 
ing that  recognition." 


11 

*'  Man's  life  in  personal  communion  with  God." — 
Van  Oosterzee. 

"A  mode  of  knowledge,  thought,  feeling,  action, 
which  has  the  divine  as  its  object,  its  ground,  and  its 
aim." — Nitzsch  of  Berlin. 

This  is  the  best  definition,  and  most  suitable  for  the 
end  and  purpose  we  have  in  view.     Note  its  excellencies. 

(1.)  It  makes  a  distinction  between  knowledge, 
thought,  feeling  and  action. 

(2.)  It  recognizes  the  divine  as  the  object  of  knowl- 
edge, of  thought,  of  feeling,  of  action, 

(3.)  It  is  thus  easil}'  applied  to  specific  religions,  while 
it  is  a  general  definition. 

Divisions  of  Prolegomena. — .Religion  includes  (1)  A 
subject.  (2)  An  object,  and  (3)  Some  intercommunica- 
tion between  the  religious  being  and  the  object  of  re- 
ligious'regard.  These  will  be  considered  in  their  rela- 
tions as  follows  : 

I.  Phenomenology  of  Religion. 

II.  Psychology  of  Religion. 

III.  Different  theories  of  the  origin  of  Religion. 

IV.  Criteria  of  Religion. 

V.  Relations  of  Religion  to  morality, 

VI.  Significance  of  Religion  as  an  element  of  life  and 
history. 


12 


I. 

PHE^OMElNOLOGY  OF  RELIGION. 

There  are  three  points  to  be  considered. 

(1.)  The  Subject.  (2.)  The  Object.  (3.)  Actual  his- 
torical manifestations. 

1.  Ihe  Subject  of  Helic/ioji. — In  whom  or  what  does  it 
exist?  of  whom  is  religion  predicated?  In  answer  to 
these  inquiries  we  say. 

A.  We  predicate  reliorion  of  man,  and  only  of  man. 
We  are  not  concerned  with  any  beings  above  or  below 
man.  God's  relations  to  man  constitute  religion,  but  we 
do  not  predicate  religion  of  these  relations.  They  are 
never  called  religious  relations. 

B.  Religion  is  predicated  of  all  men,  not  merely  of 
some.  There  are  those  who  assert  that  it  is  to  be  predi- 
cated only  of  some  men  :  that  there  are  some  men  who 
are  not  religious:  this  is  obviously  and  plainly  an  error. 
Religion  is  not  confined  to  any  stage  of  progress  of  civ- 
ilization, as  the  Positivist  claims.  There  have  been, 
and  are,  no  men  on  earth,  so  far  as  we  know,  who  are 
not  religious.  In  regard  to  the  majority  of  men  there 
is  no  question.  The  only  question  is,  (1.)  with  degraded 
classes,  (2.)  with  men  like  John  Stuart  Mill  ;  philoso- 
phers who  claim  that  they  are  in  no  way  religious.  In 
regard  to  (1.)  of  these  classes  it  is  asserted  that  there  are 
races  who  have  no  religious  natures.  In  "Force  and 
Matter,"  Dr.  Biichner  asserts  that  there  are  tribes 
among  whom  there  cannot  be  foujid  any  idea  of  religion, 
or  conception  of  God.  Sir  Jobn  Lubbock  takes  the 
same  view.  Sir  Samuel  Baker  takes  the,  same  ground 
in  regard  to  certain  tribes  in  Africa.  These  denials  are 
based  on  knowledge  and  unprejudiced  observation.  No 
one  can  deny  the  degraded  condition  of  those  tribes  ; 
but  the  number  of  non-religious  men  found,  is  so  small 
thus  far,  that  we  must  wait  before  accepting  any  con- 
clusions, until  more  is  shown  in  regard  to  them.  More- 
over their  degradation  is  so  great  that  they  cannot  give 


13 

I  any  coherent  ideas  in  reorard  to  their  own  belief.  Peo- 
[»le  can  only  be  said  to  be  without  religion,  when  tliey  have 
no  idea  of  the  Infinite.  "  Simple  lack  of  faith  in  the 
moral  order  of  the  world  does  not  prove  that  they  have 
no  religion."     (Bretschneider.) 

Dr.  Motfatt,  the  missionary,  in  asserting  that  some 
tribes  have  no  religion,  means  it  in  the  higlier  sense  of  the 
term.  E.  B.  Tytor,  in  "  Primltwe.  Culture  "  Vol.  I.  p. 
378,  takes  up  all  such  statements  as  the  foregoing,  and 
after  examination  says  that  they  do  not  rest  on  proof  suffi- 
cient for  an  exceptional  state  of  things.  He  then  can- 
vasses these  assertions.  He  cites  a  case  in  regard  to  the 
aborigines  of  Australia,  and  denying  the  claim  that  they 
are  without  any  super-natural  beliefs,  says,  "  they  have 
most  positive  belief  in  souls,  demons,  and  deities." 

French  missionaries  found  partially  developed  ele- 
ments of  religious  belief  in  South  Africa.  Tylor  ex- 
plains that  savages  seek  to  hide  their  worship  from 
foreigners.  This  accounts  for  many  supposed  absences 
of  religious  elements  of  life  and  character.  Tiele, 
("  Outlines  i if  the  History  of  Religion,"  p.  6,)  says  in  regard 
to  these  statements  tliat  they  rest  either  on  inaccurate 
observation,  or  confusion  of  ideas.  The  conclusion  from 
all  this  is  that  so  far  as  we  have  investigated,  all  men 
have  religious  ideas  and  observances. 

C.  Religion  is  an  essential  function  and  characteristic 
ofman.  It  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of  man.  Thereare 
two  positions  taken  in  regard  to  this. 

(1.)  That  man  became  religious. 

(2.)  That  he  was  made  religious.  jS either -of  them  is 
true.  Man  is  by  nature  a  religious  being;  what  is  so  uni- 
versal and  spontaneous,  must  be  traced  to  his  nature. 
The  very  diversity  of  religions  strengthens  the  argument 
that  religion  is  natural,  and  necessary  to  man. 

Henry  Rogers  says,  "  man's  religious  instincts  are  in- 
eradicably  rooted  in  man's  nature."  The  proof  of  the  es- 
sential character  of  religion  to  man  is  the  same  as  that 
for  intelligence,  and  moral  sense.  Tyndal  in  the  Preface 
to  his  Belfast  Address,  (2d  Edition)  says,  "  no  atheistic 
reasoning  can  dislodge  religion  from  the  heart  of  man. 
Logic  cannot  deprive  us  of  life,  and  religion  is  life  to  the 
religious  :  as  an  experience  of  consciousness  it  is  beyond 
the  assaults  of  lo^ic." 


14 

D.  Religion  belongs  to  the  conscious  and  voluntary 
phases  of  human  life — it  is  not  an  unconscious  and  invol- 
nntary  state.  The  conditions,  circumstances  and  sur- 
roundings may  have  an  influence  in  moulding  man's 
religion  but  this  does  not  prove  that  religion  is  an  uncon- 
scious passive  state.  We  never  ascribe  i-eligion  to  any 
wlio  are  incompetent  of  voluntarily  adopting  it. 

E.  Man  is  a  religious  being  by  virtue  of  the  posses- 
sion, and  in  the  use  of  the  faculties,  which  constitute  him 
a  moral  agent,  i.  e.  intelligence,  sensibility,  and  con- 
science. These  endowments  make  man  religious  and  de- 
velop religious  life.  Yet  moral  and  religious  relations 
are  not  identical.  The  spheres  of  the  ethical  and  re- 
ligious are  to  be  distinguished,  though  the  same  man 
sustain  both  relations,  and  this,  by  virtue  of  his  possess- 
ing and  using  the  same  faculties.  There  are  those  who 
hold  the  independence  of  morality.  (The  moralistic 
school  in  France.)  Morality  and  religion  require  the 
same  substratum. 

2.  The  Object  of  Religion. — That  to  which  religion  is 
related  as  object  is  God.  This  isa[)plicable  to  the  higher 
forms  of  religion.  For  the  lower  forms,  a  wider  gene- 
ralization is  needed.  We  accept  from  Natural  Theology 
that  there  is  a  God.  There  are  certain  lines  of  reasoning 
whereby  the  existence  of  a  God  is  proved.  This  is  not 
however  necessary:  man's  nature  clinging,  longing, 
reaching  out  for  something  super-human,  tells  him  there 
is  something,  whether  he  may  interpret  it  into  God  or 
gods.  Men  may  not  rightly  interpret  what  things  point 
to  the  true  God:  the}^  ma}'  not  reason  correctly:  they 
may  not  fashion  any  theory  that  approaches  it,  yet  they 
have  by  what  may  be  an  erroneous  process  of  reasoning, 
all  reached  some  idea.  The  incompleteness  of  nature, 
and  its  teachings  thus  makes  a  revelation  of  some  sort 
necessary.  The  supernatural  then,  supplements  this  feel- 
ing after  God.  God  comes  thus  to  meet  man  in  his 
search,  though  he  may  not  recognize  the  approach. 
Man's  own  natural  reasonings  not  only  come  short,  but 
they  entirely  miss  the  true  God.  We  therefore  find  that 
the  world's  worship  has  almost  alwaj's  been  rendered  to 
the  unworthy.  Vide  Acts  17 :  23-30  ;  1  Thess.  4:5: 
Colos.  1  :  21  ;  Gal.  4:  8;  1  Corinth.  12:  2. 


15 

Tlie  firsi  chapter  of  Romans  is  far  more  philosophi- 
cal, in  saying  that  men  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their 
knowledge,  than  the  skeptic,  when  denying  revelation, 
in  trying  to  explain  this  degradation.  Notwithstanding 
these  monstrosities,  no  man  can  attribute  them  to  God. 
He  has  given  them  the  means  of  knowing.  The  doctrine 
that  man  has  sunk  from  an  earlier,  better  state  is  more 
intelligible  and  defensible,  than  the  theory  ot  develop- 
ment and  elevation. 

Positivism  insists  on  the  insufficiency  of  both  natural 
and  revealed  religion.  The  centre  of  the  new  religion 
is  the  great  conception  of  Humanity.  By  it  the  idea  of 
God  will  be  superseded.  The  object  of  the  worship  of 
Positivism  is  not  an  infinite,  absolute,  incomprehensible 
being.  It  is  reached  in  a  scientific  way  :  there  is  no 
mystery  about  it.  Comte  claims,  that  chemical,  astro- 
nomical, sociological,  biological  tests  can  be  applied  to  it. 
The  question  is,  do  we  need  these  ? 

Perfection  is  in  no  wise  claimed  for  it.  Defects  are 
sought  for  in  order  to  be  corrected.  Again,  the  concep- 
tion of  the  object  of  his  worship  could  not  be  formed 
till  after  the  French  Revolution.  Were  the  longings  of 
our  nature,  through  ages  crying  out  after  an  object  of 
worship,  that  could  only  be  satisfied  after  the  French 
Revolution  ? 

Rather  than  for  such  an  object  as  this  "  my  heart  and 
my  flesh  crieth  out  for  the  living  God." 

3.  The  Actual  Historical  Manifestations  of  Religion. — 
A.  Phenomena  connected  with  formal  public  worship. 
Pressense  says  "  All  ancient  forms  of  worship  are  based 
on  four  institutions,  viz:  Sacrifices,  Priesthood,  Temples 
and  Religious  Festivals."  These  are  the  pillars  that  up- 
hold religion.  Condensed  into  three  and  changed  in 
order  they  are  (1)  Places  prescribed  for  public  worship. 
(2.)  Observances,  and  (3)  Persons  set  apart  to  conduct 
worship  — Priesthood. 

(1.)  Places  set  apart  for  worship.  History  and  Soci- 
ology call  attention  to  provisions  made  everywhere  for 
places  for  public  worship.  E.Kamples  of  this  are  the 
temples  of  Greece  and  Italy ;  the  pagodas  of  India  and 
China;  the  mosques  of  Mohammedan  countries;  the 
relics  of  Druidism  in  Great  Britain  ;  churches  and  cathe- 
drals everywhere. 


16 

The  depth  of  the  religious  convictions  in  man  is  seen 
in  the  elaborate  and  costly  way  in  which  these  edifices 
are  built.  They  are  not  the  mere  caprice  of  architec- 
ture; they  reveal  an  idea  and  purpose  as  clearly  as  the 
walls  of  a  fortress  or  a  dungeon. 

(2.)  Observances  connected  with  worship.  As  one 
observes  these  many  and  varied  ceremonials  of  different 
stages  of  civilization,  he  is  impressed  with  the  fact  that 
they  are  the  work  of  anxious  thought.  There  is  a  religio 
evidenced.  Enormous  exactions  are  made  of  men,  and 
submitted  to  by  them.  Besidef=^,  all  these  voluntary  offer- 
ings are  made,  and  duties  assumed.  Offerings  not  only 
of  material  wealth,  but  sometimes  in  the  form  of  torture 
and  fanatical  sacrifices  of  virtue  and  life.  Asceticism  is 
prescribed  or  assumed.  Pilgrimages  are  undertaken, 
that  are  long  and  wearisome.  In  India,  in  the  Roman 
and  Greek  Catholic  churclies,  in  Mohammedan  conn-- 
tries  to  Benares,  Jerusalem,  Mecco,  pilgrims  are  always 
seen  wending  their  way.  The  most  protracted  toil,  the 
most  that  is  sacred  to  self,  or  in  self,  is  surrendered  ; 
wealth,  life,  chastity,  the  blood  of  the  first  born,  are 
willingly  given  up. 

(3.)  Individuals,  families,  castes,  are  set  apart  for  the 
culture  of  religion.  The  cause  of  this  is  not  merely  the 
ambitious  grasping  of  certain  men,  but  rather  the  wijl 
of  the  people  that  tlie  deit}'  or  deities  niay  be  most  effec- 
tually served  or  propitiated.  Sacrifice  is  usually  com- 
mitted to  these  hfnds.  Where  the  patriarchal  system 
has  passed  away,  it  is  the  priest  who  offers  sacrifice. 
Worship  is  led  by  this  specialh-  privileged  class:  even 
prayer  is  sometimes  deputed  entirely  to  priestly  orders, 
as  if  it  were  more  acceptable  from  his  sacred  office.  The 
heart's  whole  n'eaning  must  be  expressed  ;  how  shall 
this  expression  be  made  ?  This  question  is  left  for 
the  priest.  Yet  in  view  of  all  this  atheists  say  that  the 
conception  of  God  is  merely  human. 

B.  Phenomena  connected  with  the  private  life  of  men. 
In  the  Roman  home  places  were  set  apart  for  tiie  family 
gods  (penates).  The  Greeks  recognized  this  idea  of 
family  divinity,  embodied  in  the  Goddess  of  the  Hearth, 
" Eazia  (  Vesia).  Priestly  character  is  ascribed  to  the  head 
of  the  house  in  his  own  sphere.     Business,  however  im- 


17 

portant,  is  arrested  for  the  sake  of  worship,  at  the  call  of 
the  muezzin  in  Mohanimedan  h^iuls,  and  the  curfew  toll 
in  Catholic  countries  reaches  every  ear  and  stays  every 
hand.  All  these  facts  show  that  relijjion  cannot  be 
brona;ht  too  near  the  individual  heart,  and  that  it  is  not 
safe  to  be  without  it.  Nominal  Christianity  is  oft^n  re- 
buked by  heathenism  in  that  it  does  not  I"»rin2;  religion 
into  this  nearness  to  private  and  family  life.  It  would 
be  hard  to  make  religion  more  general I3'  persuasive, 
than  Homer  has  done  in  his  poetry,  or  than  the  Romans 
did  wiien  they  began  every  new  undertaking  with  relig- 
ious observances.  The  verdict  of  all  humanity  is,  that 
religion  inust  not  be  wtM'u  as  an  ornament. 

C.  Phenomena  in  connection  with  faith  or  creeds. 

These  are  sometimes  philosophical,  sometimes  doc- 
trinal, sometimes  mythological,  and  often  without  any 
definite  form  whatever.  All  religions  imply  a  revelation 
of  the  deity.  The  contents  of  this  revelation  or  discovery- 
are  embodied  in  creeds.  Men  do  not  seem  to  believe 
tliat  God  wishes  to  remain  uid-cnown.  This  however  is 
the  intellectual  element  in  religion,  and  therefore  is  least 
developed,  and  sometimes  missing  in  the  lower  forms. 

The  intelligent  observer  sees  what  the  followers  of 
these  lower  forms  believe  without  knowingor  beingable 
to  formulate.  Sometimes  creeds  are  embodied  in  myth- 
ology. In  these  the  imagination  has  taken  the  longest 
flights.  In  others,  the  most  concentrated  thought  is 
devoted  to  religion.  (Compare  Gladstone's  Juventus 
Mundi,  cliap.  VII.)  It  is  not  true  that  these  systems  are 
creations  of  the  poets.  Tlie  poets  give  form  to  them, 
and  elaborate  them  ;  but  the  elements  of  them  are  in  the 
minds  of  average  men. 

The  strong  hold  that  religion  has  taken  on  man  as  an 
intellectual  being,  is  made  evident  from  these  phenom- 
ena. 

-D.  The  social  element  of  religion. 

Men  do  not  hold  religious  beliefs  as  isolated  beings, 
as  if  each  had  a  God  of  his  own.  They  need  fellowship, 
and  communion  witli  each  other.  Union  and  sociability 
in  religion  is  one  of  its  most  marked  characteristics.  Tliis 
points  to  oneness  of  nature  and  origin  in  one  direction, 
and  in  another  it  points  to  fellowship  in  religion  asessen- 


18 

tial.  Mail  is  concerned  in  man,  as  wftll  as  in  God. 
Religion  is  sympathetic  :  the  rehitions  of  race,  nationality, 
social  and  domestic  ties  contribute  much  towards  bring- 
ing religions  beings  together.  This  sociability  is  not 
due  to  mere  pride  of  religion,  but  to  the  demands  of  man's 
nature. 

When  the  religions  of  the  world  are  spoken  of, 
more  or  less  organized  forms  of  belief  and  of  action  are 
signified,  in  which  considei-able  numbers  of  men  agree. 
When  an  individual  man  is  spoken  of  as  of  this  or  that 
religion,  it  is  meant  that  by  his  own  assertion,  or  observ- 
ance, he  agrees  substantially  with  oiie  or  other  of  these 
organized  systems.  The  term  employed  to  designate 
any  leligion  ma}-  be  taken  fi'om  some  internal  charac- 
teristic of  the  .system,  or  from  some  historical  or  geo- 
graphical feature.  On  the  ground  of  a  man's  declared 
creed,  or  his  association  with  those  of  a  certain  system, 
he  may  be  called  a  religious  being,  though  actually  he 
is  irreligious.  Some  religions  are  called  historical  and 
national  :  scientifically  they  are  those  which  have  a  sci- 
entific development  in  history.  A  positive  religion  is 
one  wliich  rests  on  aji  external  authority  in  all  matters 
pertaining  to  belief  or  observance.  They  differ  from 
natural  religion  wliose  authority  is  internal.  Natural 
I'eligion  however  is  a  misnomer.  There  is  no  such  thing 
definitely  accepted  as  Natural  Theology  except  in  tech- 
nical tlieological  usage. 

4.    I'ype.s  of  the  World's  Religions. 

Various  classifications  have  been  proposed.  These 
are  either  determined  by  the  philosophical  theory  of 
their  authors,  or  by  some  practical  aim  in  view.  The 
most  natural  and  best  classification,  is  that  given  by 
Paret.  He  groups  the  religions  according  to  their 
idea  and  conception  of  the  divine  object  of  religious 
regard  and  worship.  According  to  this  classification 
there  are  two  general  groups  of  religions. 

A.  Those  which  conceive  God  within  and  of  nature, 
called  religions  of  nature. 

B.  Those  which  conceive  God  above  nature, — called 
supernatural  religions. 

Nature  here  does  not  mean  merely  the  material 
objects,  but  also  the  forces  and  phenomena,  or  even  con- 


19 

ceptions  of  the  human   mind.     No   intensifying  of    any 
natural  religion  can  make  it  supernatural. 

A.   JRelif/ious  of  Nature. 

(1.)  Non-mythological  or  (2.)  mythological  religions. 
These  mny  he  suhdivided  into  various  species  as 

(1.)  Non-mythological, — comprising  those  in  which 
the  ohject  of  worship  has  no  personality,  hut  spirituality 
is  ascrihed  to  it  in  its  t\)rm  or  modes  of  working. 

Some  of  the  religions  of  this  class  are, 

{a.)  Fetichism,  as  developed  in  Africa,  among  the 
American  Indians,  and  in  i>iii-ts  of  Asia.  The  ohject  of 
worship  is  sonie  material  substance  as  a  stone,  tree,  etc., 
anything  that  represents  an  idea  of  divinity.  If  this 
ohject  does  not  suit,  it  may  he  whipped,  burned  or 
destroyed.     This  is  the  lowest  of  ail  tN'pes  of  religion. 

[h.)  Shamanism  as  developed  in  central  and  northern 
Asia,  and  to  some  extent  in  North  Europe.  The  objects 
worshipped  are  spirits,  addressed  through  conquerors. 
It  prevails  extensively  though  the  number  of  worship- 
pers is  comparatively  small. 

{c.)  That  in  which  the  worship  is  addressed  to  the 
elements  or  to  the  heavenly  bodies,  fire,  wind,  and  the 
sun  as  representative  forms  of  the  deity. 

[d.)  That  in  which  the  heavens  and  earth  or  some 
power  back  of  them,  in  a  general  way  are  worshipped. 
It  existed  in  China  before  Confucianism.  Ancestor  wor- 
shij)  is  associated  with  this  type. 

(2.)  Mythological  religions.     These  comprise, 

[a.)  Those  in  whicli  tiie  object  of  worship  is  external 
nature,  personified  and  deified. 

{b.)  Those  in  wdiich  human  ideas  and  conceptions  are 
personified  and  deified.  Of  these  again,  (a)  would 
include 

(«.)  Old  Indian  religions.     The  religions  of  the  Vedas. 

(/3.)  Religions  of  Western  Asia,  Syria,  Phrygia,  and 
Carthage.  In  these  the  prominence  is  given  to  the 
productive  power  of  nature.  The  sun,  the  masculine 
element  :  the  moon  the  feminine,  and  fire  as  the  destroy- 
ing agent,  symbolized  by  Baal.  Astarte  and  Moloch. 

{•(■.)  The  Egyptian,  in  which  a  natural  principle  is 
worshipped,  symbolized  by  some  animal,  as  the  bull,  the 
ibis,  etc.     The  animal  form  is  often   combined   with  the 


20 

human.  This  reliijion  shows  how  the  hnmati  heart  can- 
not he  content  with  such  ohjects  of  worship,  for  when 
the  synihol  dies,  tiiere  is  a  great  wailing, 

(6).  This  chiss  will  include  : 

(a).  Greek  and  Roman  religions. 

(/9),  Persian,  where  a  large  use  is  made  of  natural 
symbolism. 

{y).  Old  German,  where  we  find  ideas  of  moral  char- 
acter. 

{3).  Buddhism,  which  calls  existence  itself  an  evil  and 
makes  salvation  consist  in  annihilation,  {Nirvana).  This 
religion  shows  best  of  all  that  it  is  impossible  for  man  to 
arrive  at  the  true  object  of  worship  without  revelation  ; 
that  the  true  religion  must  Iiave  been  revealed,  divinely 
founded,  which  leads  us  to  consider  the 

B. — Supernatural  Beligions  or  following  the  same  class- 
ification. 

(3). — Supra-Mythological  Religions. 

These  are  religions  of  revelation,  or  corruptions  of 
revealed  religions.  The  deity  is  conceived  of  as  supra- 
mundane  and  extra  mundane.  The  unity  of  God  is  also 
recognized,  as  well  as  his  infinity  and  perfection,  and 
holiness  of  character.  He  is  acknowledged  to  be  the 
author  of  man's  existence  as  well  as  of  religion,  and  rep- 
resented as  coming  to  meet  man  in  revelation.  This 
class  includes — 

(a).  The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(b).   Christianity, 

(c),  Mohammedanism,  a  mongrel  of  the  other  two, 
with  some  elements  added  by  Mohammed  hiiiiself.  The 
differences  between  Judaism  and  Christianity  may  be 
stated  thus : 

1.  There  is  a  dilFerence  in  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
manifestation, 

2.  There  is  a  difl^erence  in  the  degree  of  doctrinal  de- 
velopment. 

3.  In  the  measure  in  which  the  intended  results  are 
realized. 

Christianity  excels  in  all  these,  though  the  identifica- 
tion of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  is  the  only  new  element  in 
the  New  Testament.  Mohammedanism  is  a  human  cre- 
ation, and  yet  it  contains  a  part  of  revealed  religion.     It 


21 

professed  to  be  a  reformation  of  Judaism  ;ind  Christian- 
ty,  with  new  revelations  of  wliich  Mohumnied  was  the 
organ.  It  recognized  six  great  prophets,  A(him,  Noah, 
Abraham,  Moses,  Jesns,  Mohammed.  It  is  intensely 
hostile  to  idolatry  and  polytheism,  and  aims  at  a  strict 
system  of  morality. 

There  are  other  systems  of  classification,  with  differ, 
ent  criteria.  Some  set  up  historical  tests;  others  suit- 
ableness for  universality  ;  others  influence  in  politics  ; 
others  again  the  type  of  worship,  external  or  internal, 
spiritual  or  material.  From  these  religious  manifesta- 
tions, it  is  a[)parent  that  man  does  pay  some  deference  to 
his  God  ;  that  he  seeks  intercourse  with  his  creator  with 
the  purpose  of  attaining  to  some  good  or  escaping  some 
evil.  Tliat  he  recognizes  his  whole  life  as  coming  under 
tlie  power  of  religion. 

The  multiplicity  of  religions  is  bewildering.  Some 
it  moves  to  indifference.  They  say  it  matters  not  what 
a  man's  religion  is,  so  long  as  he  has  one.  This  brings 
us  to  the  question,  what  should  be  the  type  of  our  re- 
ligion ?  whicl)  we  shall  consider  under  the  Psychology  of 
Religion. 


22 


II. 
PSYCHOLOGY   OF   RELIGION. 

Man's  inner  nature  is  actively  engaofed  in  religion, 
as  has  been  made  manifest  by  the  consideration  of  the 
external  phenomena  of  religion.  What  then  is  the 
nature  of  this  inner  activit}' ?  This  question  resolves 
itself  into  two,  viz.  (1.)  How  many  and  which  moral 
faculties  are  in  exercise  in  subjective  religions?  (2.)  In 
what  order  do  they  come  into  activity  ? 

As  preliminary  considerations  in  this  discussion 
notice 

1.  The  spiritual  oneness  of  man. 

2.  The  necessity  of  so  generalizing  as  to  cover  all 
types  of  religion,  the  lowest  as  well  as  the  highest. 

1.  How  many  and  in hicli  faculties  are  exercised  ? 

a.  There  are  intellectual  elements  in  exercise,  and  yet 
religion  is  not  wholly  intellectual.  If  religion  have  God  as 
its  end,  there  must  be  knowledge  and  thought  of  God's 
claims  on  man.  One  test  of  the  highest  types,  though 
not  the  only  one,  is  the  degree  of  intelligence 
wliich  they  imply.  There  is  a  more  vivid  conception 
of  the  claims  and  relations  of  God  with  man  in  these 
than  the  lower  types.  Yet  care  should  be  taken  not  to 
go  to  the  extreme  of  ultra  intellectualism.  Rationalism 
and  supernaturalism  care  more  to  have  man's  views  right 
than  his  heart.  This  would  make  knowledge  and  belief 
too  nearly  identical.  Orthodoxy  does  not  alone  consti- 
tute religion.  The  O.  T.  describes  religion  as  wisdom, 
not  as  an  exercise  of  mere  intelligence. 

h.  There  are  emotional  elements  indispensable  to 
religion  and  yet  religion  is  not  wholly  emotional.  Hope, 
fear,  love,  trust,  all  iind  utterance  in  religion,  but  these 
mere  sentiments  are  not  alone  religion.  Schleiermacher 
makes  godliness  a  determination  of  feeling  :  others  make 
religion  to  consist  in  [rious  frames  of  mind.  These 
belong  to  the  ultra-emotional  school  of  thinkers.  Mys- 
ticism is  as  abnormal    as   rationalism.     Faith   is  neither 


23 

wliolly  ii  sentiment,  nor  only   an    intellectual   apprehen-' 
sion. 

c.  The  will  has  no  less  really  its  part  in  subjective 
leligion,  and  yet  the  si:)here  of"  religion  is  not  bounded 
l)y  the  will.  The  mere  spontaneous  development  of 
leligious  feeling  is  not  religion.  Some  jtliilosophers  go 
to  the  extreme  of  making  the  will  the  birth  place  and  the 
origin  of  religion,  (e.  g,  Kant  and  the  school  which 
tMJIows  him).  The  Romish  church  holds  this  theory: 
tliat  the  individual  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  in  himself, 
lint  he  goes  to  the  church,  as  to  a  teacher,  and  thus 
exercises  his  will  in  following  out  her  requirements. 
Hence  he  becomes,  in  this  view,  religious. 

(/.  Religion  calls  into  exercise  tlie  function  of  con- 
science, and  3'et  it  is  an  error  to  explain  religion  as  orig- 
inating and  consisting  merely  in  conscience. 

C'ertainly  conscience  does  not  supply  the  conceptions 
of  what  we  cherish  most  in  religion.  It  is  not  conscience 
which  is  reverent,  trustful,  loving,  grateful,  fearful.  Con- 
science passes  Judgment  on  our  treatment  of  the  idea 
and  facts  of  religion  ;  on  the  way  wc  cherish  and  rnani- 
test  the  sensibilities  ;  it  approves  or  condemns  the  course 
we  take,  and  all  that  wo  do  in  matters  of  religion. 

2.    The  order  of  Psycliologiccd  development. 

Is  there  any  order  in  the  way  in  which  these  facul- 
ties come  into  exercise  ?  Any  antecedence  of  one  to  the 
rest?  That  either  the  will  or  the  conscience  takes  the 
[)rocedence  in  the  order  of  Psychological  development, 
is  claimed  by  no  one.  There  is  a  dift'erence  of  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  relative  position  of  the  intellectual  and 
(Muotional  element.  There  are  those  who  make  the 
conviction  of  the  reality  of  the  ideas  of  God,  truth,  and 
immortality  the  root  of  all  religious  development,  and 
that  the  emotional  element  closely  follows  upon  this. 
On  the  contrary  side,  Schleiermacher  and  his  school  of 
tljinkers  claim  that  religion  is  an  immediate  feeling,  the 
sense  of  absolute  dependence.  Others  regarding  this  as 
too  vague  and  unsubstantial  define  religion  as  the  "  con- 
sciousness of  God:"  others  still  objecting  to  these  ideas 
say,  that"  religion  begins  with  faith.  Morall,  an  English 
authority,  traces  religion  to  a  distinct  and  separate  fac- 
ulty which  exists  as  a  primary  element  in   our    nature. 


24 

Jacobi,  Fries,  Pascal  speak  of  a  moral  orc;an,  a  moral 
faculty  b}'  which  we  come  to  know  the  snpersensual  and 
divine.  As  to  the  existence  of  such  a  faculty  we  need 
not  assume  or  concede  it,  if  the  other  powers  are  suffi- 
cient for  the  development  of  all  that  belon<Ts  to  relicijion. 
The  true  view  of  the  order  of  Psychological  development 
is,  that  religion  implies  (a)  the  discovery  and  at  least 
partial  identification  of  relations  existing  between  man 
and  God;  but  these  need  not  all  have  been  comprehend- 
ed. It  further  implies  (b)  the  recognition  of  feelings 
corresponding  to  these  relations,  and  also  the  manifesta- 
tion ot  them.  In  our  endeavor  to  ascertain  which  is  the 
prior  faculty  exercised  in  the  development  of  religious 
ideas  we  will  do  well  to  emphasize 

(1.)  The  spiritual  unity  of  man, 

(2.)  The  universality  of  religion. 

With  these  points  in  view  we  must  make  the  hypoth- 
esis we  accept  include  and  explain  all  actually  existing 
circumstances.     We  must  hence 

a.  Reject  all  explanations  of  the  origin  of  religion 
which  talk  of  man's  consciou.'^ness  of  God.  All  these  sys- 
tems are  chargeable  with  Pantheism.  However  quick 
our  apprehension  of  God,  we  are  not  conscious  of  Ilim. 
He  does  not  come  to  the  consciousness  of  himself  in  us, 

b.  We  must  reject  all  theories,  and  forms  of  state- 
ment, which  imply  that  feeling  is  cognitive.  Feeling 
does  not  know,  does  not  take  cognizance  of  anything; 
can  give  no  information  of  its  own  source  or  end.  It  is 
bewildering  and  misleading  to  ascribe  intelligence  to 
feeling,  "  It  is  a  state  of  mind  consequent  on  the  con- 
ception of  some  idea,"  (Bowen,)  Some  maintain  that 
"faith  is  a  knowing  on  the  ground  of  feeling,"  (Schleier- 
macher.)  This  overturns  our  idea  of  feeling.  It  be- 
comes an  idea.  Dependency  implies  the  idea  of  some- 
thing above,  on  which  we  are  dependent.  All  feeling 
must  be  able  to  justify*  itself  to  some  idea. 

c.  We  must  recognize  as  equally  natural  to  man,  and 
in  a  sense  equally  primary  and  fundamental  to  religion, 
the  cogjiition  and  religious  sentiments  belonging  to  it. 
It  is  no  more  true  that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate  in  man, 
than  that  religion  is  a  part  of  his  nature.  Both  are  pri- 
mary.    But  the  sentiment  can  only  be  called  into  exer- 


25 

cise  toward  its  own  appropriate  object  and  cause.  On 
tlie  other  hand,  there  is  no  religion  in  the  mere  posses- 
sion of  the  idea  of  God  ;  both  are  equally  essential  and 
fundamental.  Vide.  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  October,  1876. 
Bowen  on  the  "  Source  of  the  idea  of  God."  l*rof. 
Bowen  gives  a  three-fold  source  of  the  idea  of  God,  viz  : 

Reason,  Sentiment  and  Conscience,  neither  one 
exclusive. 

God  the  ruler  in  one  wa}-,  God  the  lovely  and  Just  in 
another,  and  God  the  holy  and  good  in  another  way,  is 
the  result  of  each  of  these  ideas. 

True  and  perfect  religion  does  not  exist  until  the 
right  Reason,  the  right  Sensibility  and  the  right  Con- 
science are  exercised. 

As  appertaining  to  this  subject,  the  Contemporary 
Review  says  :  "  The  God  of  Pliiloso}ih\'  is  the  product  of 
speculation  ;  the  God  of  religion  is  an  object  of  worship. 
In  the  latter  case  God  must  be  conceived  of  as  a  person 
or  power  standing  in  a  relation  to  the  worshipper;  but 
in  the  former,  the  deity  is  the  Urst  or  final  conclusion  or 
proposition  in  a  system  of  reasoning  for  truth."  As 
against  this  it  is  claimed  that  God  has  made  provision 
for  the  knowledge  of  himself  in  the  natural  endowment, 
and  in  the  experience  of  every  man  which  attests  of  him. 
He  has  made  provision  for  the  awakening  of  the  relig- 
ious sensibility.  He  has  placed  in  us  a  poweFto  express 
our  state,  and  with  all  this  the  functions  of  conscience. 
Paul  at  Athens,  found  men  very  i-eligious,  yet  their  con- 
ception of  God  was  an  erroneous  one.  So  was  it  among 
the  Jews,  and  so  in  the  world's  religions  there  are  many 
awful  lacks. 


26 


III. 

DIFFERENT  THEORIES  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF 

RELIGION. 

The  old  Materiiiiistic  Philosophy  of  Lucretius  and 
Cicero,  {De  Natura  Dear  urn),  asserted  that  fear  made  God. 

The  Natural  Development  Theory,  brings  the  progress 
of  religion  through  seven  stages  of  development. 

(1)  Atheism,  ^2)  Fetichism,  (3)  Nature  Worship,  (4) 
Shamanism,  (5)  Idolatry,  (6)  Principle  Worship,  (7)  The- 
ism and  Pantheism. 

This  is  unscientific  as  well  as  unscriptural.  It  fails  to 
account  for  most  of  the  phenomena  of  religion.  Thus 
Henry  Buckle,  in  "The  History  of  Civilization  in  Eng- 
land," says  that  History  is  the  modification  of  man  by 
nature  and  of  nature  by  man.  He  excludes  the  super- 
natural, and  holds  that  Monotheism  was  prior  to  Poly- 
theism. 

Herbert  Spencer  claims  that  "  the  general  theories, 
Atheistic,  Pantheistic  and  Theistic,  are  all  unthinkable. 
All  creeds  imply  a  problem,  which  they  attempt  to  solve. 
As  we  go  from  the  lower  type  of  creeds  to  the  higher 
ones,  it  becomes  evident  that  the  universe  and  the  Crea- 
tor are  greater  mysteries.  The  deepest  and  widest  of  all 
facts,  is  that  the  power  of  the  universe  is  inscrutable." 
To  the  question  how  did  man  come  to  the  idea  of  God, 
he  gives  the  following  answer  : 

(a). — That  man  comes  to  an  idea  of  dualism  in  nature. 

{b). — That  the  first  traceable  conception  of  a  super- 
natural being,  is  a  ghost. 

(c). — From  the  conception  of  a  ghost,  he  passes  to 
ancestor  worship.     (The  first  step  in  worship.) 

{d). — Idolatry  and  Fetichism  are  abnormal,  or  aber- 
raDt  developments  of  ancestor  worship. 

(e). — Animal  worship,  and  plant  worship,  are  further 
developments  of  the  same  thing,  a  progress  away  from 
the  worship  of  lifeless  objects. 

(/). — The  worship  of  Deities. 


27 

In  reo^ard  to  tlie  Semitic  conception  of  God  he  sava, 
'•  that  it  is  not  to  he  snpposed  tliat  they  caine  hy  their  con- 
ception in  any  dift'erent  way  from  the  rest  of  the  worhl, 
i.  e.  by  any  snpernatural  means."  This  is  the  general 
natnral  deveU)pnient  tlieory. 

Specific  TheorU's  of  the  Origin  of  Belif/ion. — These  are 
tive  in  n timber. 

A.  The  Political  Theory  :  That  religion  is  a  device  of 
statesmen  and  rulers,  to  move  the  people  to  obedience  to 
the  laws  of  the  state  throngli  fear  of  occult  powers. 
Hence  so  called  Supreme  beirigs.  This  was  the  theorv 
of  Bolingbroke.  Hobbes  held,  that  "  religion  is  the  fear 
of  the  invisible  powers  that  the  state  recognizes." 
''  Superstition,"  he  held  to  be  "  the  fear  of  those  invisible 
powers  which  the  Rtate  does  not  recognize,"  Tliis  theory 
implies  a  susceptiliility  or  tendency  to  religion  of  which 
statesmen  have  taken  advantage;  but  it  is  a  shallow  and 
suiierticial  explanation,  because  it  does  not  see  the  extent 
of  thcf^e  religious  apprehensions,  emotions,  and  obsei'v- 
aiices. 

B.  Ti\e  Physical  Theory. — Tlie  influence  and  phenom- 
ena of  nature,  has  so  po we rfullj'  affected  the  emotions, 
the  reason,  the  imagination  of  man,  tliat  these  excited 
sensibilities  seek  an  object  above  and  bej'ond  nature 
which  has  aroused  them.  Among  savage  men  the  im- 
agination alane  prevails  almost  entirely;  therefore,  tlieir 
reliii^ion  is  fantastic.  Amono:  civilized  and  enliijhtened 
men,  the  imagination  is  subject  to  the  reason.  First, 
there  is  a  belief  that  there  are  occult  powers;  then  tliat 
there  are  claims  upon  him  by  these  occult  powers,  and 
80  the  actual  religions  are  tlie  results  of  the  attempts 
made  to  satisfy  these  claims.  Tliis  theory  is  in  accord 
with  the  ancient  and  modern  philosopliy. 

[Vide  Volney  and  Biichner).  Even  some  of  the 
Christian  fathers  when  asked  to  account  for  religion,  gavrj 
tliis  as  their  explanation.  This,  however,  fails  to  account 
for  the  early  appearance  and  general  prevalence  of  re- 
ligion. 

C.  The  Selfish  Theory. — Hume  sa3's,  "  the  ignorant 
and  uninstructed,  finding  their  own  happiness  or  misery 
depend  on  the  secret  influence,  and  unforeseen  concur- 
rence of  external  objects,  regard  with  perpetual  attention 


28 

these  unknown  causes  that  distribute  pleasure  and  pain, 
good  and  ill  to  men.  So,  startino^  with  mere  re<]^ard  for 
one's  own  welfare,  men  reach  the  higlier  forms  of  re- 
ligion. Wljile  this  theory  miujht  explain  a  few  phenom- 
ena, it  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  nobler  aspects  of  life. 

D.  The  theory  thai  religion  originates  in  a  primitice,  super- 
natural revelation. — This  theory  was  held  by  many  early 
theologians,  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant;  according  to 
it,  man  had  the  endowments  of  religious  possibilities  in 
his  nature,  out  no  I'eligion  until  God  began  the  super- 
natural endowment  ot  man,  with  religion.  There  could 
have  been  no  development  without  this  supernatural 
revelation.  According  to  the  Scriptures,  however,  God's 
witness  in  his  own  behalf  in  nature,  is  sufficient  for  re- 
ligious oblio^ation  and  reliii^ious  life.  Man's  nci^lect  of 
this,  brings  on  him  the  guilt  of  ungodliness. 

Revelation  was  not  meant  to  supply  a  defect  of  nature, 
and  make  the  religious  life  possible.  It  was  to  guide 
man  to  the  right  religious  life.  A  supernatural  revela- 
tion would  have  been  unintelligible  to  one  who  knew 
nothing  of  religion. 

E.  The  tlieory  that  religion  began.,  in  God^s  revelation  of  it 
to  man,  in  nature. — Antecedent  to  the  Supernatural  inter- 
vention, there  is  provision  made  for  the  revelation  o'f  a 
system  of  religion,  in  nature.  There  are  agencies  in  na- 
ture which  are  reinforced  by  Supernatural  agencies,  in 
the  organization  of  religion.  According  to  thi?  theory, 
man  starts  to  find  God  in  the  way  of  nature.  God  comes 
to  meet  him  in  the  way  of  grace.  Notice  in  this  connec- 
tion (1)  How  much  more  is  told  and  known  of  God 
than  nature  can  tell  ;  ('2).  How  abundantly  all  man's 
natural  impulses  are  justified.  (3.)  How  desirous  God  is 
to  be  rightly  known  and  reverenced. 


29 


IV. 
THE  CRITERrA  OP  RELIGION. 

The  tests  by  which  tlie  exellencies  of  any  relii^ion 
may  bo  tried,  are  to  be  considered  next  in  our  order  of 
investiij^ation.  When  asked  to  accept  one,  or  to  reject 
another,  or  to  clioose  from  a  number  of  religions,  the 
question  becomes  a  practical  one.  The  ancient  lawgivers 
and  philosophers  recognized  three  tests,  and  used  them 
to  justify  existing  religions,  or  to  eradicate  errors. 

(1).  The  traditional  or  prescriptive  right  of  any  re- 
ligion to  exist. 

(2).  Truth  to  reason. 

(3).  Truth  to  the  great  claims  of  morality. 

(VVhen  the  ancients  spoke  of  morality  they  usually 
meant  social  and  political  morality).  To  these  may  be 
added  two  other  tests. 

(4).    The  practical  eifects,  and 

(5).  The  special  and  direct  divine  attestations  in  be- 
half of  one  system  above  all  others. 

(1).  The  test  of  traditional  or  prescriptire  right. — Plato 
appeals  to  the  uopo:;  -dvoco:;,  the  custom  or  usage  of  the  state 
— {nios  civitatis) — ra  e&fj.  (Acts  6:  14).  This  was  used 
by  the  Jews  when  they  were  condemning  Stephen. 
There  are  many  things  which  support  such  systems. 
National  pride,  reverence  to  ancestors,  respect  for  sages 
and  for  what  they  liave  respected  and  accepted.  All 
these  tend  to  strengthen  this  test.  The  ajiproved  usage 
may  be  called  into  question  ;  in  such  cases  in  ancient 
times  the  oracles  were  appealed  to;  pontitis  were  recog- 
niz*ed  as  arbiters.  The  Romans  permitted  the  introduc- 
tion of  other  systems  of  religious  worship,  if  these  were 
not  exclusive.  In  the  conquered  states,  free  course  was 
allowed  to  the  native  religions,  but  it  was  only  as  a  mat- 
ter of  political  expediency.  They  kept  secret  the 
name  of  their  protecting  god  ;  while  they  wished  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  protection  of  other  patrons,  they 
did  not  wish  others  to  avail  themselves  of  their  advant- 
ages.    It  is  always  the  case  that  the  new  faith  as  an  in- 


30 

triider  lias  to  overcome  the  traditional  faith.  This  argu- 
ment is  used  by  Catholicism  as  against  Protestantism, 
and  at  times  by  Christianity.  {Vide  Archb.  Whately  on 
the  fallacy  of  believing  in  a  faith,  only  because  it  is  old). 
This  is  a  presumptke  argument,  though  it  cannot  be 
made  a  prime  argument  in  favor  of  Christianity. 

(2.)  Truth  to  Reason. — Tiie  application  of  this  test' 
may  bring  on  the  rejection  of  a  system,  or  its  correction 
in  those  elements  which  are  deemed  irrational,  or  it  mav 
result  in  the  confirmation  of  its  claims.  Some  of  the 
Greek  Schools  of  Philosophy  rejected  their  mythologies, 
others  refined  and  ailegoi-ized  them  by  simplv  using  this 
test.  Cliristianity  itself  invites  in  many  w[\\s  the  ai:)pli- 
cation  of  it.  It  asks  acceptance  as  a  reasonable  system. 
It  also  concedes  the  right  of  judgment  in  regard  to  other 
systems,  on  the  same  criteria.  It  is  not  rrjeant  that  this 
test  should  be  ajiplied  to  each  individual  doctrine,  but 
only  to  the  basis  on  which  the  whole  system  rests.  Paul 
at  Athens  makes  this  appeal.  He  compares  Christianity 
with  heathenism  on  rational  grounds.  In  using  this  test 
such  questions  as  the  following  should  be  answered  (a.) 
Is  the  system  in  its  different  parts  consistent  with  itself? 
(b.)  Do  its  revelations  harmonize  with  the  simpler  ele- 
ments which  it  takes  from  natural  religion  ?  (This  ques- 
tion can  only  be  asked  of  a  system  which  claims  to  be 
revealed.)  (c.)  Does  the  system  harmonize  with  the 
constitution  of  the  world  which  it  must  suit  ?  (d.)  Is  the 
system  suited  to  man's  constitution  ?  Is  it  worth}'  of 
man  as  a  religious  being?  Does  it  promise  to  meet  his  real 
and  pressing  wants  ?  Does  it  give  the  remedial  needs 
which  his  nature  requires?  All  these  questions  bring 
out  the  internal  evidences  of  the  truth  of  a  s3-stem. 

(3.)  Iruth  to  our  Moral  Nature. — The  old  Greeks  rec- 
ognized this  test  and  ])rotested  against  the  immoralities 
of  the  mythological  gods.  In  this  respect  however  tiie 
Greek  and  Roman  religions  were  better  than  those  of 
the  farther  east,  Assyrian,  etc.  A  system  should  neither 
condemn  nor  be  indifferent  to,  but  it  should  promote 
moral  interests.  This  was  recognized  by  Greek  phil- 
osophers, though  in  their  idea  of  evil  they  emphasized 
what  was  aesthetically  wrong,  rather  than  what  was  con- 
trary to  the  holiness  of  God.     As  used  by  them  the  test 


31 

included  taste  us  an  element  in  morality.  A  religion 
ought  not  to  commend  by  example,  or  by  ordinance,  or 
by  institution,  anything  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
moral  consciousness  of  rnai!.  But  evei-y  religion  should 
consent  to  be  tried  by  this  test  of  its  truth  to  man's  moral 
nature. 

Of  these  three  tests  the  tirst  would  be  used  by  tlie 
people,  while  the  use  of  the  last  two  would  to  a  certain 
extent  be  limited  to  men  of  thought  and  reason  especially 
with  a  view  to  refining  and  elevating  their  national  relig- 
ion. The  old  heathen  systems  were  not  aggressive, 
therefore  it  is  that  the  ancients  did  not  ask  whether  these 
systems  were  suitable  for  others:  the  question  with 
them  was,  what  is  right  for  us?  What  the}'  put  in  the 
first  [)lace  of  importance  we  put  in  the  last  and  thus 
make  more  U3e  of  the  rational  and  moral  tests,  taking  care 
to  admit  the  right  of  reason  and  moral  nature  to  estimate 
the  merits  of  a  religion  alread)'  given  tis,  but  not  to  create 
a  religion.  The  appearance  of  Christianity  necessitated 
comparison.  It  claims  to  come  with  evidence  that  will 
overbear  all  other  faiths  At  lirst  it  had  the  weight  of 
the  traditional  or  prescriptive  test  against  it,  but  soon 
presented  other  grounds  of  excellence — and  thus  devel- 
oped 

(4.)  The  practical  test ;  the  practical  effects  of  a  religion 
as  a  valid  and  vital  test  of  the  reality  and  strength  of 
its  claims.  By  practical  effects  are  meant  (a)  Effects 
on  the  intelligence.  The  intellectual  conceptions  be- 
longing to  a  religion  cannot  be  barren  or  confined 
merely  to  outward  observances ;  they  must  be  prolific 
and  that  not  in  a  temporary,  but  permanent  manner. 
A  true  religion  should  invigorate  the  mind,  while 
error  always  has  the  opposite  effect.  If  the  mind  be  not 
thus  consolidatCvl  the  religion  does  not  bear  the  test. 
Compare  Polytheism  and  Monotheism,  Idolatry  and 
the  worship  of  a  spiritual  God;  Pantheism  and  the 
worship  of  a  personal  God  ;  Fatalism  and  free  intelli- 
gent worship  of  a  Being  who  rules  by  moral  law  ;  Mate- 
rialism with  supernaturalism  in  their  effects  on  the 
intelligence  of  man. 

[b.)  Effects  on  the  emotional  tastes  and  sensibilities. 
If  the  results  are  mischievous  in  this  respect  the  religion 


32 

fails  to  bear  the  test.  If  they  are  salutary  the  religion 
is  salutary  also.  In  examining  the  etfects  on  the  emo- 
tions, we  should  ask,  (1.)  what  emotions  are  developed  ? 
(2.)  in  what  degree  and  proportion  are  they  called  forth  ? 
(8.)  to  what  purpose  they  are  elicited,  (4.)  how  does  the 
indulgence  excited  react  upon  the  mf)ral  nature  of  man, 
e.  g,  liumility  is  dcveh)ped,  but  it  may  be  developed  too 
much.  It  may  become  servility.  Admiration,  conse- 
cration, love,  fear,  confidence,  gratitude  should  be  devel- 
oped b}'  religion.  We  ask  can  they  be  developed  by 
the  contemplation  of  such  religious  objects  as  the  gods  of 
Polytheism;  or  if  they  are,  to  wliat  extent  and  purpose 
are  they  developed. 

[c.)  Effects  on  the  aesthetic  nature  of  man.  The  sub- 
lime and  beautiful  should  lind  their  climax  in  true  relig- 
ion. 

{(I.)  Other  practical  effects.  It  should  be  asked, 
how  does  a  religion  influence  the  conduct  of  its  votaries  ? 
What  things  do  men  do  when  they  give  tliemselves  up 
to  the  influence  of  their  religion  ?  These  practical  effects 
may  be  classed  (1.)  Religious  observances  called  for: 
(2.)  general  activities  of  life:  compare  in  regard  to  the 
former,  the  effects  of  the  formalism  of  many  types  of 
religion,  with  those  of  true  heart  religion.  The  God  who 
wili  accept  formal  and  perfunctory  worship  is  not  wor- 
thy of  even  that.  In  regard  to  the  latter,  compare  those 
religions  wliere  cruelty,  licentiousness,  and  passion  are 
indulged,  or  intensified,  with  those  under  whose  influ- 
ence they  are  curbed  or  crushed,  and  instead  of  them 
the  domestic  and  social  activities  are  elevated.  This 
test  was  applied  to  the  old  heathen  religions,  by  such  of 
the  ancient  apologists,  as  Arnobius,  Lactantius,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  etc.  It  is  legitimate  and  applicable  to 
all  religions. 

The  four  foregoing  tests  may  be  applied  to  all  relig- 
ions equally.  But  as  soon  as  a  distinction  is  made  between 
natural  and  supernatural  religions,  then  it  is  necessary 
to  use  the  fifth,  or, 

5.  Special  Divine  attestations  in  favor  of  one  form  of  re- 
ligion.— The  presence  or  absence  of  these  is  a  test  of  the 
absolute  and  comparative  claims  of  a  religion.  The 
special  attestations  must  be  of  the  nature  of  general  com- 


33 

miinications,  macleixndantlienticatedby  God,  or  of  expres- 
sive and  si  g:;iiifi  cant  acts  performed  in  belialfof  the  re- 
ligion wliicli  the  divinity  would  have  men  accept  as  true. 
It  has  been  argued  against  Christianity  that  revelation  is 
su|)eilluous  ;  that  it  is  im[)ossil)le  ;  that  it  cannot  be  sus- 
tained by  human  testimony  ;  that  it  cannot  be  sustained 
by  the  evidence  of  the  senses;  that  in  all  its  alleged 
forms  it  is  unrelial)le,  having  been  tampered  with  or 
altered  unconsciously.  If  these  positions  are  defensible, 
all  religions  are  concerned  in  the  issue.  There  are  three 
steps  in  establishing  the  claim  of  divine  attestation  : 

(a).  To  prove  that  such  attestations  can  be  regarded 
as  possible  under  any  circumstances, 

(6).  That  they  arc  probable  under  certain  circum- 
stances, and 

(c).   That  they  are  attested  in  any  given  system.. 

A.  That  such  attestations  can  be  regarded  as  possi- 
ble under  any  circumstances. 

(1).  Against  the  revealed  religions  it  lias  been  argued 
that  revelation  is  superfluous.  That  such  attestation 
would  not  be  superfluous,  appears  from  the  entire  relig- 
ious history  of  the  world,  as  well  as  its  present  religious 
condition.  A  correct  interpretation  of  nature  is  not  and 
never  has  been  common.  This  is  granted  by  even  those 
who  estimate  man's  abilities  most  highly.  No  nation, 
nor  even  a  solitary  philosophei-,  has  come  to  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  religion  of  nature  without  help  from 
revelation.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  religions 
of  the  world  have  been  siginxlly  defective  and  false.  If 
these  divine  attestations  are  not  real,  then  they  are  worse 
than  superfluous,  because  they  are  an  invasion  of  man's 
prerogative,  vitiating  the  spontaneous  and  natural  con- 
ceptions to  which  he  would  have  come  without  this 
alleged  help.  But  the  burden  of  proof  falls  on  those 
who  make  the  claim,  that  man  need  not  be  helped  by  his 
God,  and  that  relis-ion  is  rendered  higher  without  such 
helj). 

It  is  not  necessary  now  to  ask  why  man  has  failed. 
It  is  enough  to  know  that  he  has  failed,  that  he  needs 
help,  and  that  therefore  revelation  is  not  superfluous, 

(2),  That  an  appropriate  and  suflicient  attestation  to 
the  true  and   accepted   religion  by  a  deity  desiring  and 


3^ 

delighting  in  worship  and  service,  seems  certain,  if  it  be 
possible,  is  indicated  by  the  constitution  of  man,  and 
adaptation  of  nature.  He  who  has  inclined  us  to  look 
after  him,  will  not  stop  at  the  rudimentary  knowledge  that 
we  thus  acquire,  unless  there  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  it. 
If  he  has  any  delight  in  any  particular  type  of  religion, 
he  will  signify  that  preference  by  further  instruction  and 
sufficient  attestation.  It  is  objected,  however,  that  this 
argument  proves  too  much  ;  "  if  God  desires  to  be  wor- 
shipped, and  if  attestation  to  some  form  of  worship  as 
preferable  to  all  others  is  needed  by  us,  and  possible  to 
Him,  He  will  provide  such  attestation  as  v/ill  convince 
and  persuade  men.  He  will  supply  such  attestation  as 
will  have,  an  actual  efficiency,  as  would  be  conclusive  to 
all,  and  everywhere,  and  to  the  fullest  extent."  In  an- 
swer to  this  ;  notice  that  the  objector  goes  beyond  any 
warrant,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  actual  and  uni- 
versal elFectiveness  of  these  further  attestations,  will  not 
unduly  encroach  on  human  freedom,  impair  or  degrade 
virtue,  and  imperil  some  other  moral  interest.  We  hold 
it  impossible  that  such  results  can  be  shown.  God  makes 
a  revelation,  provides  for  it  attractions,  and  furnishes 
evidences  which  facilitate  its  spread.  We  have  no  right 
to  say  that  if  there  is  a  revelation  it  must  be  universal  ; 
that  because  it  is  given  as  limited  it  is  not  genuine.  If 
revelation  is  not  discoverable  everywhere  it  may  be  dis- 
coverable somewhere.  We  are  led  to  look  for  a  revela- 
tion somewhere,  by  preliminary  and  partial  revelations 
in  nature.  We  should  not  therefore  require  of  a  revela- 
tion that  it  be  necessarily  effective. 

(3).  That  direct  and  positive  attestations  to  the  posi- 
tive and  even  to  the  exclusive  excellence  of  some  religious 
system  above  others,  seem  to  be  entirely  possible.  There 
is  no  difficulty  lying  in  the  way  of  revelation  so  far  as 
we  can  see.  That  God  should  express  his  preference 
does  not  seem  to  be  a  task  for  his  omniscience  and  om- 
nipotence. There  is  no  baffling  or  limiting  element  in 
the  end  to  be  reached  through  such  an  expression,  and 
as  for  the  means,  it  is  not  fitting  or  possible  for  us  to  say 
in  advance  what  kind  of  measure  of  sanctioning  evidence 
must  be  given  to  convince  us;  nor  is  it  our  province  to 
say  that  this  or  that  line  of  evidence  will  be  sufficient  for 


35 

a  priori  reasoning.  The  very  fact  that  the  probability  of 
revehition  is  proved,  ought  to  make  our  attitude  that  of 
the  patient,  expectant,  eager,  interested  inquirer.  It  is 
not  a  matter  of  indifference  as  if  it  did  not  concern  us 
whether  there  were  an  attestation  from  God  or  not. 
Perfect  mental  equit}'  and  the  impartiality  of  indifference, 
are  not  to  be  confused  the  one  with  thi*  other. 

B.  It  is  claimed  in  behalf  of  some  religions  that  they 
have  received  such  special  divine  attestations,  and  that 
they  are  supported  by  them.  In  one  group  we  find  Mo- 
hammedanism, Judaism  and  Oliristianity,  with  the  Pa- 
triarchal type  of  religion. 

Candor,  simple  love  of  truth  and  integrity  require 
us  to  examine  the  evidences  for  such  an  attestation. 
Some  systems  claim  to  have  revelations  without  accom- 
panying attestation.  All  these  must  be  examined.  We 
must  inquire  whether  it  be  only  an  alleged,  or  a  real 
divine  sanction.  It  is  not  necessary  to  wait  for  new 
claims  ;  the  first  considered  may  seem  so  conclusive  as  to 
demand  our  faith.  Yet  he  who  loves  truth  will  not  re- 
fuse subsequent  claims  brought  to  his  mind,  but  will 
consider  them.  A  Jew  was  bound  to  remain  such  until 
God  had  shown  him  a  new  system,  until  Christianity 
presented  to  him  its  conclusive  warrant  for  its  claims. 


36 


V. 
RELATIONS  OF  RELIGION  TO  MORALITY. 

These  are — 

(1).  Historical.     (2).  Theoretical,  and  (3).  Practical. 

1.  The  Hisifvical  Belations  of  Religion  and  Morality. — 
There  are  some  thinf^s  to  be  considered  in  regard  to  the 
historical  relations  of  the  world's  religions  to  the  world's 
morality.  The  problem  is  to  ascertain  and  to  estimate 
the  connection  that  has  existed  between  the  morality  and 
the  religions  of  the  world.  What  each  of  these  two 
systems  has  been  to  the  other,  or  done  for  the  other. 
The  examination  of  this  question  would  bring  up, 

(1).  The  fo.ct,  in  answer  to  the  question  has  religion 
had  an}'  relation  to  morality  ? 

(2).  The  nature  of  this  relation,  and 

(3).  The  direction  and  measure  of  their  reciprocal  in- 
fluence. 

In  all  religions  of  human  origin,  men  have  undoubt- 
edly fashioned  their  objects  of  worship  largely  in  their 
own  moral  likeness.  The  religious  code  and  ritual,  have 
taken  their  character  from  the  character  of  the  people. 

The  moral  nature  ot  man  may  force  him  to  put  some 
restraint  on  himself;  a  restraint  which  by  nature  ho 
would  not  bear.  Naturally  he  is  neither  disposed  nor  able 
to  fashion  a  religion  which  will  be  powertully  and  radi- 
cally antagonistic  to  evil.  For  the  most  part  the  relig- 
ions of  man's  devising  confine  and  intensify  his  existing 
moral  state.  Even  revelation  comes  to  the  eye  of  man, 
through  the  moral  state  in  which  the  recipient  is 
found,  unless  he  that  gives  the  revelation  accompanies  it 
with  influences  potent  enough  to  prevent  this.  It  is  his- 
torically true,  that  man's  moral  state  .has  corrupted  his 
religion.  The  moral  elements  are  wanting  in  Fetichisra, 
according  to  Herbert  Spencer;  so  other  lower  religions 
lack  these  moral  elements;  thci'efore  it  is  inferred  that 
in  the  earliest  stages  of  civilization,  there  was  no  moral 
element  in  religion,  but  that  it  was  gradually  developed. 
But  it  is  hard  to  ascertain  just  where  it  makes  it's  ap- 


37 

pearance.  It  is  not  developed  from  within,  it  must  como 
from  without.  We  must  admit  a  powerful  reciprocal  in- 
fluence between  a  people's  morality  and  their  relit:;ion. 
Let  either  be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  and  the  influence  on 
the  other  is  [jowerfully  felt.  Both  are  too  deeply  rooted 
in  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  and  too  vitally  con- 
nected to  allow  us  to  grant  their  historical  separation. 
History  accords  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture  in  regard 
to  this. 

Spencer  says  th;it  "  we  read  history  thi-ongh  the  lens 
of  our  religious  faith,"  It  may  be  said  ofliim,  that  he 
reads  history  through  the  lens  of  his  philosophy. 

2.  Theoretical  or  essential  relations  of  Religion  aad  Mo- 
rality.— Religion  and  n\orality  are  not  identical  phetjom- 
ena.  The}',  maj',  however,  be  connected  in  the  posses- 
sion and  use  by  man  of  certain  faculties.  The  moral 
faculties  do  not  deal  with  precisely  tlic  same  objects, 
under  the  same  impulse,  and  in  precisely  the  same  way 
as  the  religious  faculties.  They  ditier  in  the  method  of 
their  development,  as  well  as  in  their  essential  nature. 
We  define  morality  to  be  the  ordering  of  a  man's  life 
according  to  his  moral  ideas;  that  is  of  obligation  and 
duty,  of  right  and  wrong.  These  conceptions  may  be 
incomplete,  or  incorrect ;  the  subjection  of  the  life  to 
them  may  be  slight,  fitful;  yet  there  is  something  con- 
ceived of  as  right,  and  man  orders  his  life  according  to 
this  conception.  The  life  then  has  amoral  character; 
morality  is  predicated  of  it. 

In  the  stricter  sense,  morality  is  predicated  of  a  life 
in  which  the  application  of  these  moral  ideas  to  conduct 
is  evident  and  consistent.  By  religion  is  meant  an  order- 
ing of  human  life  in  which  the  desire  is  the  object, 
ground  and  aim,  of  knowledge,  thought,  feeling  and  ac- 
tion. All  religion  has  some  moral  quality,  and  all  ideas 
of  morality  are  involved  in  a  religious  life  in  its  every 
part.  Whether  the  facts  and  principles  of  religion  have 
in  like  manner  and  degree  as  much  to  do  with  morality 
is  debatable.  To  say  that  religion  is  not  moral,  would 
be  to  say  that  the  conscience  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
It  would  reduce  it  to  a  physical  basis.  "  The  ethical  or 
moral,  ideally  is,  that  which  it  is  normal  for  man  to  will 
and  to  do."     (Martensen).     "  The  human  will's  consent 


38 

to,  or  concurrence  with  what  is  normal,"  is  his  practical 
definition  of  the  ethical  or  moral  in  man.  The  former 
is  the  morality  that  ought  to  he,  the  latter  fairly  repre- 
sents that  which  is  realized.  This  definition  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  covering  many  of  our  restricted  and  qualified 
uses  of  the  term,  and  exposes  the  falsity  of  its  abuses 
and  perversions,  by  callingattention  to  the  false  standard 
of  morality.  The  normal  standard  by  which  man  is  to 
be  morally  judged,  will  vary  in  different  parts  of  his  life, 
or  as  his  life  is  viewed  in  different  aspects.  Philosophical  or 
theoretical  ethics  finds  its  standard  in  reason,  or  the  con- 
stitution of  our  common  humanity;  Christian  Ethics 
finds  it  in  the  facts  and  principles,  and  in  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  as  modifj'ing  what  before  seemed  to  be  good 
and  right ;  Social  Ethics  finds  it  in  man's  relations  to  so- 
ciety ;  Po/Z^iCrt/ Ethics  in  his  relations  to  the  State  ;  Legal 
and  Medical  Ethics  in  what,  according  to  a  right  concep- 
tion of  those  branches  of  science  is  normal,  or  is  made 
normal.  The  most  fundamental  element  in  morality  is 
the  sense  of  obligation.  There  is  that  which  our  life 
ought  to  be,  all  moral  sensibilities  assert  that  the  moral 
lite  is  noi  a  necessitated  life,  or  an  aimless  life.  It  is  not 
a  life  directed  and  moulded  by  chance,  or  self-determi- 
nation. We  know  and  feel  ourselves  to  be  under  obli- 
gation in  respect  lo  the  mode  and  quality  of  our  life,  both 
as  a  whole,  and  in  its  parts. 

((7,).  When  this  personal  sense  of  obligation  comes  to 
deal  with  the  details,  the  idea  ot'dut.)/  is  evolved. 

{b).  When  dealing  with  the  qualitj^  of  our  moral  states 
and  acts,  the  idea  of  rirlue  is  developed. 

(c).  When  directed  towards  the  ends  which  we  should 
seek  in  life,  it  gives  us  the  idea  of  subordinate  and  su- 
preme good.  These  three  ideas  may  be  arranged  in  dif- 
ferent orders,  but  they  are  indispensable.  They  may  be 
elaborated  incompletely,  directed  wrongly,  but  never 
set  aside. 

We  ask  now,  what  are  the  relations  of  religion  and 
morality  to  each  other  ?  To  Atheism  religion  has  no 
right  to  exist  at  all,  and  sustains  no  relation.  It  has  less 
warrant  than  the  creations  of  the  novelist  or  poet.  On 
the  ground  of  Theism  there  are  six  different  theories  that 
may  be  held  in  regard  to  these  relations. 


39 

A.  One  of  the  two  may  be  regarded  as  including  and 
absorbing  the  other. 

(1).  Morality  may  be  cojiceived  ot'as  merged  in  relig- 
ion, so  as  to  have  only  a  nominal  existence.  This  is  the 
theory  of  consistent  mysticism.  Devotion  to,  contem- 
plation of,  and  love  tor  God,  is  according  to  this  system, 
the  all  embracing  duty. 

(2).  Religion  may  be  merged  into  morality.  This  is 
the  general  tendency  of  the  extreme  forms  of  rational- 
ism. (The  Illnminism  of  the  last  century;  the  Masonic 
systems,  etc.). 

B.  (3).  Religion  and  Morality  may  be  held  to  be  es- 
sentially distinct  and  different,  so  that  either  may  exist 
in  its  entirety  without  the  other.  That  each  must  justify 
its  existence  and  maintain  its  right  on  its  own  ground. 
This  is  the  theory  of  the  Naturalistic  Schools  of  Philoso- 
iphy.  There  is  a  French  school  which  advocates  morality 
fully  developed,  without  any  recognitic^n  of  God  what- 
ever. 

C.  Both  morality  and  religion  may  be  conceived  of, 
as  having  a  rightful  existence,  but  one  decidedly  subor- 
dinate to  the  other. 

(4.)  Religion  is  conceived  of  as  fundamental  and 
primary:  morality  as  subordinate  and  secondary.  This 
has  been  a  common  view  with  theologians  in  so  far  forth 
as  they  have  been  disposed  to  recognize  the  validity  of 
the  results  of  philosophical  research.  Dr.  Wardlaw  in 
"  Christian  Ethics  "  chapter  VII,  makes  Religion  and 
Morality  substantially  equivalent.  Morality,  is'Religion 
in  practice,  and  Religion  is  morality  in  principle.  Vide 
Dr.  McCosh  "Divine  Government "  (p.  405.) 

(5.)  Morality  conceived  of  as  more  primary  and  fun- 
damental, and  religion  subordinate.  This  is  Kant's 
philosohical  theory.  The  rationalistic  theology  of  Kant, 
derives  our  belief  in  God,  from  our  moral  ideas,  as  well 
as  well  as  our  belief  in  immortality. 

D.  (6.)  Religion  and  morality  may  be  conceived  of  as 
equally  necessary  and  in  a  sense  equally  primary,  and 
therefore  as  co-ordinate  developments  in  human  life, 
closely  and  vitally  connected,  yet  not  identical ;  not  prac- 
tically separable,  if  either  is  to  become  true,  full  and 
complete;  yet  the  true  life  is  influenced  by  considerations 


40 

of  different  kinds,  belongins;  to  each  of  these  two  spheres  .- 
in  morality  duty  to  right:  in  religion  duty  to  God. 

We  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  some  points  at 
which  morality  and  religion  either  agree  or  diverge  the 
one  from  the  other. 

(1.)  Both  have  their  ground  in  our  constitution  as 
human  beings.  They  are  primary  elements  in  our  nature  : 
original  impulses.  Botli  are  called  for  and  necessary  for 
a  full  complete  development  of  manhood. 

(2.)  Both  have  reference  to  objects  external  to  Our- 
selves, whose  claims  upon  us  are  real  and  valid,  and 
must  be  met  if  we  would  be  true  and  just  men.  There 
is  a  call  from  without  for  a  moral  and  religious  life,  not 
only  from  within.  As  we  come  to  meet  these  claims 
they  are  not  annulled,  but  become  wider  and  stronger. 
Thei-e  ought  to  be  progress  in  religion  :  a  Christian 
ought  not  to  be  satisfied  witli  wliat  contented  him  in  the 
beginning  of  liis  religious  life. 

As  differences  between  the  two  spheres  of  life  may 
be  noted, 

(3.)  In  respect  to  the  relative  position  of  the  objects 
with  which  they  have  to  do.  To  religion  God  is  the 
central  object,  and  all  other  things  take  their  places  about 
Him:  their  relations  to  man  depend  on  their  relations  to 
God.  From  Hiin  they  acquire  their  significance.  Life 
is  a  circle,  the  centre  of  which  is  God.  All  things  nre 
referred  to  this  centre  and  treated  accordingly.  Morality 
has  not  necessarily-  this  object.  It  deals  with  each  object 
on  its  o\tn  merits,  emphasizing  the  claim  of  right  with 
regard  to  everything.  Liie  is  a  plane,  in  wliich  all  these 
things  lie,  and  each  must  be  separately  treated  and  con- 
sidered. There  is  an  intrinsic  rigljt  in  every  separate 
case  ;  therefore  an  atheist  may  have  a  system  of  morality, 
treating  everytldng  directly  and  immediately  and  ignor- 
ing God. 

(4.)  In  the  quality  of  the  claim  which  they  assert,  and 
exercise  overman.  In  religion  it  is  the  will  of  a  personal 
God  which  comes  constantl}'  into  consideration.  He  is, 
and  is  Lord,  and  whatever  we  ought  to  be  in  consequence 
of  religious  relations,  we  ought  to  be  in  consequence 
of  our  relation  to  Him.  In  moralit}'  the  claim  is  the 
abstract  claim  of  an  abstract  right;  something  desirable, 


41 

fitting,  obligatory.  In  this  view  right  is  not  conceived 
as  something  anterior  or  superior  to^God.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  not  created  or  contingent.  Both  the  claims 
of  right,  and  the  absolute  claim  of  God  are  real,  God 
has  so  made  ns  that  by  the  constitution  of  our  being  we 
recognize  right  and  wrong.  We  ieei  that  we  owealle- 
giance  to  both.  We  do  not  conceive  of  God  as  more 
.primary.  If  so  there  would  be  a  time  when  it  could  not 
have  been  predicated  of  him.  God  however  creates  the 
relations  which  bring  right  into  manifestation.  Men  may 
unwarranted  deny  one  of  these  claims,  or  divorce  theiri 
unnaturally  while  professing  to  admit  both,  or  regarding 
them  as  valid  separately.  Ethics  and  morality  are  incom- 
plete without  the  knowledge  of  God  and  his  claims. 
Therefore  Ethics  must  recognize  natural  and  revealed 
religion.  In  morality  the  power  working  for  good  is  a 
power  wholly  within  the  moral  agent.  It  depends  on 
the  nature  of  the  individual  and  is  kept  alive  by  abstract 
considerations.  It  is  influenced  by  the  training,  educa- 
tion, inclinations  and  sensitiveness  of  the  moralist.  Pride, 
hatred  of  religion  may  prompt  the  moralist  to  a  vigil- 
ance, a  steadfastness,  an  earnestness  which  a  Christian 
may  lack. 

Usually  however  where  the  claims  of  religion  are 
recognized,  there  is  a  more  healthful,  a  more  eftective 
eftbrt;  then  the  voice  of  conscience  becomes  the  voice 
of  God.  The  double  call  makes  men  more  earnest  and 
more  successful. 

3.  Wluit  shonld  he  the  practical  relations  of  religion  and 
moralitj/. — It  is  evident  that  they  both  have  their  place  in 
life.  The  question  is,  what  should  each  do  for  the  other. 
In  answer,  notice  that  religion  should  reach  over  into 
morality,  in  order  to  make  itself  more  complete  and  per- 
fect, and  to  lift  morality  to  its  true  place  and  dignity. 
And  morality  too,  will  Ije  misproportioned  in  its  devel- 
opment, and  incomplete  in  its  results,  unless  it  reaches 
into  constant  relation  with  religion. 

Morality  cannot,  and  should  not  be  content  with 
recognizing  God  merely  as  one  of  many  co-ordinate  ob- 
jects, that  have  claims  on  men.  The  small  and  great, 
the  eternal  and  transient,  the  fundamental  and  super- 
ficial should  not  thus  be  considered  alike.     There  is  no 


42 

equity  in  treating  all  claims  as  equal.  If  our  sense  of 
right  is  to  be  vigorous  and  effective,  it  is  essential  to 
have  it  in  constant  relation  with  God.  A  religion  that 
would  live  secluded  from  the  common  claims  of  moral- 
ity, will  run  into  Mysticism  or  Formalism,  and  a  moral- 
ity that  would  divorce  itself  from  religion,  becomes  hard 
and  cold,  censorious,  self-righteous,  ostentatious  and 
punctilious. 


43 


VI. 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  RELIGION  IN  LIFE 
AND  HISTORY. 

Under  this  head  we  consider  the  significance  of  relig- 
ion as  a  phenomenon  in  life,  and  the  importance  of  reach- 
ing the  true  religious  faith.  We  are  confronted  with 
wide-spread  irreligion  of  the  world,  and  its  free-religion- 
ism. We  are  asked  (1)  of  what  consequence  is  it  that 
we  be  religious,  and  (2)  of  what  consequence  is  it  that  we 
be  rightly  religious.  Great  multitudes  all  over  Christen- 
dom are  irreligious.  Are  they  at  fault,  and  if  so,  to  what 
extent  ?  This  answered,  we  are  met  by  the  free-religion- 
ists, who  claim  that  all  men  are  divine  travelers,  travers- 
ing the  same  road,  their  faces  set  toward  the  same  object, 
the  same  light  on  them,  if  they  but  see.  We  take  up  the 
first  question  : 

(1.)  What  consequence  is  it  that  we  be  really  relig- 
ious? To  this  we  answer,  if  man  is  by  nature  a  relig- 
ious being,  irreligion  is  in  the  lowest  view  of  it,  a  neg- 
lect, and  a  dishonor  of  a  natural  and  an  essential  part  of 
the  true,  full  human  life.  Manhood  is  dethroned  where 
religion  is  left  out  of  it.  Because  man's  highest  powers, 
his  noblest,  purest  sensibilities  are  the  objects  with  which 
religion  deals.  He  who  would  be  a  complete  man,  must 
be  positively  and  energetically  religious.  Irreligion  is 
explained  in  various  ways. 

It  may  be  (a)  the  effect  of  a  besotted  and  brutalized 
life  ;  or  (6)  due  to  indifference,  levity  and  negligence  ; 
or  ((?)  due  to  greater  vividness  in  the  pressure  of  material 
occupations,  secular  interests  ;  or  ((/)  it  may  be  traced  to 
a  positive  disinclination  or  aversion  to  the  claims  of  a 
religious  life  :  or  (e)  it  may  be  the  result  of  a  reaction 
against  prevalent  religious  abuses  and  errors;  or  finally 
(/)  the  legitimate  and  logical  result  of  false  speculative 
reasoning.  Against  irreligion  from  whicliever  source  it 
may  arise,  we  should  press  the  claims  of  God,  and  of 
right.     We  should    not,  however,  treat   all    irreligious 


44 

people  alike,  but  discriminate  with  a  view  to  the  origin 
of  their  irreligion. 

(3).  Of  what  consequence  is  it  that  we  be  rightly  re- 
ligious? It  is  claimed  that  the  intrinsic  difference  between 
truth  and  error,  is  a  very  little  thing.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  find  out  error,  say  the  objectors,  for  God  is  so 
indiflferent  to  all  forms  of  religion,  that  it  matters  not 
which  we  embrace.  Exclusiveness,  according  to  this 
view,  is  the  only  unpardonable  sin.  (Col.  Higffinson.)  In 
answer,  notice,  if  He  who  has  made  us  religious  beings  is 
not  a  prodigy  of  indifference,  there  is,  there  must  be,  a 
right  form  of  religion,  which  it  is  of  the  highest  import- 
ance that  we  identify.  There  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  way 
and  side  in  everything  else.  It  is  monstrous  to  assert 
that  religion  is  an  exception  to  this  general  rule.  "To 
admit  the  possible  realty  of  the  objects  and  relations 
Avith  which  religion  deals,  necessitates  the  utmost  perse- 
verance in  seekinof  the  truth  in  regard  to  such  relations." 
(Thos.  Chalmers).  Even  natural  religion,  if  its  leadings 
are  followed,  presses  upon  us  the  necessity  and  duty  of 
ascertaining  if  God,  who  gave  his  revelation  in  nature, 
has  given  us  any  larger,  or  fuller,  or  final  one. 

Having  discussed  the  several  heads  of  the  Introduc- 
tion at  length,  we  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  our 
System  of  Christian  Apologetics  as  already  defined  and 
stated. 


45 


CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETICS. 


11. 
CHRISTIAJNITY  IN  PARTICULAR. 

Christianity  claims  to  be  the  only  true,  divinely  sanc- 
tioned, and  authoritative  religion  for  us  and  for  all  men. 
What  is  meant  by  Christianity  ?  It  is  that  religion  whose 
nature  and  claims  are  set  forth  in  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  It  belongs  to  Sys- 
tematic Theology  to  examine  the  details  of  doctrine  ;  for 
the  purpose  of  Apologetics  it  is  enough  to  identify  the 
system  as  follows  :  Christianity  is  the  system,  whatever 
it  may  be  found  to  be  on  examination,  which,  in  regard 
to  its  details,  in  the  Scriptures,  is  as  their  complete  and 
final  result,  announced,  established  and  provided  jfor. 
So  far  forth  as  it  is  a  form  of  thought,  or  feeling,  or  ac- 
tion, in  reference  to  the  divine,  it  is  the  Scriptures  which 
are  to  direct  us  how  to  think  or  act. 

Characteristics  of  Christianitij. — (1).  Christianitif  is  a 
revealed  religion.  If  this  claim  cannot  be  established, 
its  great  distinctive  characteristic  is  given  up.  It  has  no 
gratitude  for  those  who  call  it  the  Ijfest,  but  not  the  re- 
vealed religion. 

(2.)  Chrisiianitfi  is  a  historical  religion  not  merely  in 
the  looser  sense,  that  it  has  figured  conspicuously  in  his- 
tory, or  influenced  history,  but  that  it  has  a  prolonged, 
minute  historical  account  to  give  of  itself;  a  historical 
progress  and  a  communication  of  it  to  men.  It  has  an 
unfolding  and  an  account  of  this  unfolding.  And  this 
is  not  merely  a  human  account  of  a  divinely  given  sys- 
tem, but  a  divine  account.  It  is  closely  and  vitally 
identified  with  certain  documents.  Its  claims  are 
dependent  largely  on  the  historical  accuracy  and  nature 
of  these  documents. 

(8.)  CJiristianity  is  a  positive  religion.  It  does  not 
merely  commend  itself  to    us,    by  intrinsic  excellencies, 


46 

bat  it  commands  authoritatively  man's  acceptance  of  it 
and  man's  compliance  with  it.  It  is  however,  winning 
and  attractive.  It  has  the  divine  as  its  ground  and  source, 
as  well  as  its  object;  it  derives  its  authority  from  God. 

(4.)  Chistianetij  is  a  rational  religion.  N^ot  as  origi- 
nating in  human  reason  ;  there  are  systems  which  can 
claim  nothing  farther  than  this  ;  not  as  professing  to  bring 
all  its  elements  into  the  comprehension  of  human  reason  ; 
but  simply  as  submitting  its  credentials  to  the  adjudica- 
tion of  reason.  It  challenges  the  right  of  reason  to 
impe*ach  its  mysteries  ;  it  never  admits  tiiat  it  could  have 
originated  in  human  reason,  but  it  claims  that  as  God 
made  man  a  rational  creature,  He  does  not  contradict 
reason  in  Christianity.  It  demands  of  men,  that  they 
act  on  its  mysteries,  as  well  as  on  those  things  which 
reason  comprehends.  It  claims  that  reason  is  honored 
and  not  reproached  by  bowing  to  it. 

(5.)  Qlirisdanity  is  an  Ethical  Religion. — It  not  only 
presents,  but  invites  moral  tests.  It  is  based  on  moral 
instinct,  sensibilities  and  the  conscience.  It  claims  to 
promote  all  the  interests  of  morality.  It  throws  light  on 
the  moral  decisions,  increases  precision  and  promptness 
in  moral  judgments ;  it  claims  to  refine  the  motives,  to 
make  the  sensibilities  delicate,  steady  and  harmonious. 
It  adds  to  the  significance  of  the  sanction  of  morality. 
But  as  religion  has  the  divine  as  its  aim,  Christianity 
claims  to  bring  man  into  living  union  with  the  divine. 

(6).  Christianity  is  a  world  religion. — There  are  not  many 
religions  that  make  this  claim,  or  could  maintain  it. 
Christianity  has  a  basis  of  facts,  which  adapt  it  to  the 
needs  of  all.  It  makes  provision  for  what  all  men  are, 
and  for  what  the}'  need.  Its  methods  to  accomplish  the 
fulfillment  of  man's  needs  are  suited  to  all.  It  has 
been  tried  more  widely  than  any  other  religion,  and  its 
adaptation  has  been  proved  more  variously  and  widely. 
This  is  not  a  mere  accidental  result,  but  one  which  was 
contemplated.  Those  who  pronounce  it  a  religion  in- 
tended for  a  single  type  of  men,  or  devised  to  meet  any 
local  or  transient  state  of  society  and  of  man,  mistake  its 
whole  scope.  It  is  not  merely  a  Jewish  religion,  nor 
merely  suited  to  the  time  of  Christ.  It  claims  and  ex- 
pects to  be  widely  spread  and  to  suit  every  class  of  men. 


47 

(7).  Christiamty  is  distinctly  adapted  to  a  special,  intellectual 
and  moral  condition  of  the  race. — It  is  universal,  because  it 
is  specific.  It  docs  not  propose  to  give  relief  to  a  few 
men  only,  or  to  provide  for  the  imaginations  of  a  fow. 
Christ  indeed  absolves  the  righteous,  but  considers  that 
if  an}' think  themselves  righteous,  they  are  worthy  of 
condemnation. 

The  revelations  of  Christianity  concern  all  men.  Its 
provision 8  are  needed  by  all,  and  its  summons  are  addressed 
to  all,  because  the  moral  condition  of  all  is  the  same. 
All  men  are  liopelessly  ignorant  unless  enlightened  by 
Christianity.  If  one  per  cent,  of  the  human  race  were 
in  a  condition  not  needing  Christianity,  it  would  fail  in 
its  claim.  It  is  specitically  adapted  to  a  certain  moral 
condition,  but  this  condition  is  universal.  No  other  re- 
ligion addresses  all  men  and  offers  to  make  of  them  what 
they  should  he. 

(8).  Christianity  traces  its  earthly  origin  to  a.  personal 
founder,  in  a  sense  and  to  an  extent  which  is  true  of  no  other 
religion. — Some  religions  are  growths,  such  as  Brahman- 
ism,  and  the  Greek  and  Roman  Mythologies;  others  are 
institutions,  such  as  Mohammedanism,  Confucianism, 
Buddhism. 

Christianity  as  compared  with  all  institutions,  is 
unique  in  the  place  wliich  its  founder  assumed,  and  which 
tue  system  ascribes  to  him.  In  the  other  systems  the 
founders  stand  outside  and  point  to  them  as  finished 
rules  of  faith.  Christ  places  himself  in  the  centre  of  his 
system.  Faith  in  Mohammed  does  not  occupy  the  same 
place  in  the  system  of  Mohammed  which  faith  in  Christ 
occupies  in  Christianity.  When  Christ  is  rejected,  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity  is  rejected,  so  that  in  one 
sense,  popularly  speaking,  Christianity  is  Christ. 

The  object  of  the  system  is  accomplished,  when  a 
special  relation  with  Christ  is  eft'ected  or  established. 
There  are  those  who  say  that  Christianity  was  founded 
by  Paul.  That  Christ  would  have  earnestly  disclaimed 
what  men  believe  concerning  him,  under  the  guidance  of 
Paul.  We  do  not  find  this  to  be  true  ;  forms  of  speech 
may  differ,  but  when  we  compare  what  Christ  claimed 
and  what  Paul  taught  about  him,  we  find  them  the 
same. 


48 

(9).  Christianify  closely  confines  its  doctrinal  and  its  vital 
elements. — What  it  requires  of  men  to  do,  is  the  result  of 
what  it  asks  them  to  believe.  While  it  insists  on  a  new 
life,  it  builds  the  right  life  on  truth  as  distinguished  from 
error.  One  cannot  live  the  life  which  Christianity  re- 
quires, except  for  the  reasons  that  it  gives. 

Some  of  its  facts  lie  within  the  sphere  of  visible  things, 
others  within  the  sphere  of  invisible  things.  The  latter 
are  to  be  received  on  faith,  Christianitv  cannot  be  com- 
municated without  a  right  apprehension  of  its  doctrines. 
The  outer}'  against  dogma,  rests  on  the  absurd  assump- 
tion, that  one  can  live  just  as  well  with  one  conception  of 
truth  as  with  another.  All  the  doctrinal  elements  of 
Christianity  are  vital,  but  dogma  implies  abstruse  reason- 
ing. The  body  of  doctrine  and  the  quality  of  faith,  or 
the  objective  and  subjective  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
inseparable. 

(10.)  Christianity  is  an  exclusive  religion. — Modern  free- 
thinkers consider  this  a  reproach.  Christianity  claims  it 
as  a  distinction.  They  say  Christianity  is  a  sect.  We 
accept  the  issue,  "  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other." 
Christianity  would  stultify  itself  if  it  were  not  exclusive  ; 
if  it  admitted  that  its  precious  sacrifice  had  nothing  defi- 
nite about  it.  The  charity'  of  the  free-thinkers  is  to  be 
distrusted.     It  is  not  genuine  catholicity. 

(11.)  Christianity  is  the  final  religion. — This  is  denied  by 
the  free  religionists.  They  say  that  analogy  leads  us  to 
expect,  that  the  end  of  all  revelation  has  not  passed. 
Hence  there  may  be  another  change ;  God  has  not 
exhausted  his  resources.  Moreover,  it  is  a  disparage- 
ment of  ourselves  to  say  that  we  are  not  as  worthy  as  the 
Jews  to  receive  a  new  religion.     In  answer,  notice  : 

(a.)  That  all  the  righttul  antecedents  of  Christianity 
pointed  to  it.     It  points  to  no  successor. 

(6.)  It  reaches  the  utmost  wants  of  man.  The  pre- 
ceding revelations  did  not  meet  all  these  wants. 

(c.)  It  was  brought  to  the  world,  by  the  Son  of  God, 
Who  that  is  higher  can  bring  a  better  revelation.  It  was 
established  and  extended  by  the  Holy  Spirit :  what  more 
exalted  agency  shall  establish  and  extend  another  S3'stem  ? 


49 


EVIDENCES   OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

GENERAL    CONSIDERATION. 

1.  Is  the  establishment  of  the  proof  of  Christianity 
within  the  reach  of  evidence  ?  It  is  sometimes  said,  that 
religions  truth  is  not  within  the  reach  of  evidence.  The 
question  belongs  to  Metaphysics  and  Natural  Theology. 
It  is  again  said  that  thono;h  religions  trntli  is  not  altogether 
inaccessible  to  our  faculties,  yet  no  religion  is  supported 
by* sufficient  evidence.  The  certainty  of  religious  truth 
cannot  be  reached.  The  world  possesses  as  yet  no  ade- 
quate logic  for  that  department  of  thought  whicli  lies 
be3'ond  our  immediate  experience.  Therefore  no  imag- 
inable evidence  can  be  sufficient  to  support  any  religion. 
A  sincere  theorist  ought  to  have  no  difficulty  in  giving 
a  definite  answer  on  this  point. 

The  God  wliom  Natural  Theology  makes  known  to 
us  is  surely  competent  to  indicate  the  way  in  which  we 
are  to  think  of  Him.  On  the  other  hand,  tlie  human 
mind  which  is  capable  of  appreciating  God  in  nature,  can 
appreciate  additional  religious  knowledge.  There  is  no 
more  intrinsic  difficulty  in  God's  saying  "  this  is  my 
beloved  Son,"  than  in  his  saying  through  nature,  "  I  am 
what  I  am."     (R.  H.  Hutton.) 

(2.)  If  the  establishment  of  truth  is  not  beyond  the 
reach  of  evidence,  what  kind  of  evidence  will  establish 
it?     There  are  three  kinds  of  evidence  : 

(a.)  Intuitive  Evidence. 

(6.)  Demonstrative  Evidence. 

((?.)  Experimental,  Probable,  or  Moral  Evidence  ; 
more  generally  known  as  Moral  Evidence.  This  lat- 
ter kind  of  evidence  differs  from  the  former  two  kinds. 

(1.)  In  that  it  depends  partly  or  fully  on  experience  ; 
(2.)  In  that  it  admits  of  degrees  of  conclusiveness  ;  (3.) 
In  that  it  may  involve  the  balancing  of  truths  seemingly 
opposed  to  one  another;  (4.)  In  that  it  involves  moral 
elements  in  the  act  of  the  inquirer  or  reasoner.  It  calls 
forth  the  use  of  the    voluntary    power    of  attention  ;  it 


50 

involves  a  responaibility  for  taking  and  treating  things 
as  they  are  taken  and  treated. 

The  truth  of  Christianity  is  not  an  intuitive  truth  ; 
therefore  the  source  of  evidence  must  be  exp^iriential,  or 
empirical.  The  sources  of  this  class  of  evidence  are  (a.) 
consciousness;  (6.)  The  senses  ;  (c.)  The  memory  ;  (d.) 
Testimony.  Reasoning  may  combine  the  items  given  by 
these  sources.  The  truth  of  Christianity  cannot  be 
established  by  consciousness,  or  the  senses,  or  memory. 
The  chief  source  therefore  of  evidence  for  Christianity  is 
testimony.  But  under  what  conditions,  and  to  what 
extent  can  the  facts  of  testimony.'  be  said  to  be  certain. 
The  existence  of  testimony  is  a  direct  and  necessary  resplt 
of  our  constitution,  and  social  relations.  It  is  not  as 
Hume  claims,  on  the  ground  of  experience  alone  that  it 
is  accepted.  We  receive  testimony  as  social  beings  ;  it 
has  a  necessity  within  us.  Faith  in  it  cannot  be  unlim- 
ited ;  it  requires  qualifications.  A  fact  alleged  on  testi- 
mony stands  as  a  contingent  truth.  The  question  then 
arises,  when  is  testimony  reliable  ?  when  does  it  become 
certain  ?  According  to  Ueberweg,  every  historical  asser- 
tion is  to  be  treated  as  a  hypothesis,  which  must  be  con- 
firmed, in  the  following  wa}'  : 

(a.)  That  it  alone  explains  the  shape  which  the  report 
took  in  the  subsequent  course  of  events. 

(/?.)  That  it  coincides  with  what  was  to  be  expected, 
as  a  consequence  of  the  nature  of  circumstances,  and  of 
previous  occurrences. 

(;'.)  The  trustworthiness  of  the  testimony  must  be 
tested  by  the  rules  which  govern  conditional  or  contin- 
gent inferences. 

There  are  two  things  involved  in  historical  credi- 
bility; (1)  the  subjective  credibility  and  (2)  the  objective 
credibility  of  the  fact.  For  any  reputed  fact  various 
hypotheses  may  be  formed  to  account.     These  are  : 

{a.)  That  the  testimony  may  have  for  its  ground  the 
fact  that  the  event  did  happen  and  was  observed. 

[b.)  That  the  observation  was  influenced  by  a  false 
apprehension. 

((?.)  That  the  report  was  influenced  by  a  false  appre- 
hension. 

{d.)  That  the  recollection  is  untrue. 


61 

(e.)  That  the  transmitters  of  the  testimony  were  influ- 
enced by  imagination. 

(/.)  That  the  occurrence  may  be  recorded  in  the  spirit 
a?id  for  the  purpose  of  romance. 

{q.)  That  the  report  may  be  circulated  for  the  delib- 
erate purpose  to  deceive. 

Relalive  Value,  of  Different  Kinds  of  Testimomj . — An 
eye-vyitnessy  known  or  credibly  believed  to  have  been  so, 
may  be  trustworthy,  provided,  (a)  he  was  able  to  appre- 
hend, strictly  and  truly,  the  event  as  it  occurred  ;  and 
(b)  he  was  able  to  give  a  true  statement,  and  (c)  he  had 
the  disposition  to  take  care  to  do  so,  viz  :  competence, 
opportunity  and  character,  are  requisite  for  the  credi- 
bility of  an  ej-e-witness.  The  very  best  kind  of  testi- 
mony is  that  wherein  there  is  an  agreement  of  several 
witnesses,  provided,  (1)  they  are  independent ;  (2)  they 
are  not  influenced  by  the  same  deception  ;  (3)  they  have 
not  been  atfected  by  the  same  prejudice. 

When  there  is  no  testimony  from  eye-witnesses,  the 
value  of  the  testimony  of  secondary  witnesses,  even  if 
they  be  contemporaries,  is  determined,  partly  by  their  in- 
telligence and  critical  capacity,  and  partly  and  chiefly  by 
their  relation  to  the  immediate  witnesses,  viz.,  character, 
opportunity  and  sincerity,  are  essential  to  secondary  wit- 
nesses. When  these  requisites  are  found,  the  testimony 
acquires  a  high  degree  of  probability  ;  therefore,  it  is 
important  to  discover  the  genealogy  of  the  testimony. 

The  testimony  of  later  witnesses,  by  common  consent 
is  rejected,  when  there  is  anything  which  is  suspicious 
in  it,  viz.,  (1).  When  there  is  a  personal  interest,  doctri- 
nal or  practical.  (2).  When  there  is  a  lack  of  compe- 
tence, opportunity  and  character.  If  neither  of  these 
grounds  for  rejection  exists,  then  the  objective  probability 
of  the  facts  must  ascertained.  Rawlinson,  {Bampton 
Lectures),  gives  the  following  canons  for  determining  the 
value  of  testimony. 

A.  When  the  record  which  we  possess  of  an  event  is 
the  writing  of  a  contemporary,  he  being  a  credible  wit- 
ness, and  having  the  means  of  observing  the  facts  to 
which  he  testified,  the  testimony  is  to  be  accepted  as  pos- 
sessing the  first,  or  highest  historical  credibility. 
i'  .;  B.  When  the  event  recorded  is  one  which  the  writer 
may  be  reasonably  supposed  to  have  obtained    directly 


52 

from  those  vvlio  witnessed  it,  we  should  accept  it  as  prob- 
ably true,  unless  it  be  in  itself  very  improbable.  Such 
evidence  constitutes  the  second  degree  of  historical  cred- 
ibility. 

C.  When  the  event  recorded  is  removed  considerably 
from  the  age  of  the  recorder,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  he  obtained  it  from  a  contemporary  writing, 
and  when  it  is  probable  that  his  source  of  intormation 
was  tradition,  still  if  the  event  be  one  of  great  import- 
ance, of  public  notorietj^  if  it  affected  the  national  life 
or  prosperity,  especially  if  it  was  of  a  nature  to  have  been 
at  once  commemorated  by  the  establishment  of  any  rite 
or  practice,  then  it  has  a  claim  to  belief,  as  probably  true, 
at  least  in  general  outline. 

D.  When  we  have  a  tradition  of  one  race  corrobor- 
ated by  that  of  another,  especially  if  it  be  a  distant  and 
hostile  race,  the  event  which  has  this  double  testimony 
obtains  a  high  degree  of  probability,  and  unless  very 
improbable  in  itself,  thoroughly  deserves  acceptaiice. 
The  weight  of  this  kind  of  testimony  exceeds  that  of  the 
third  class  and  nearly  approaches  that  of  the  second. 

3.    What  degree  of  assurance  can  jrioral  evidence  give  "? 

(a.)  It  does  not  give  that  philosophical  certitude  which 
belongs  to  axiomatic  truths  intuitivel}'  discerned  or  even 
trutlis  established  demonstratively  by  rigorous  logic. 

{h.)  Moral  Evidence  may  produce  certainty  in  the 
popular  or  moral  sense  of  the  term.  Such  certainty  as 
may  be  affirmed  of  all  truths  of  whatever  kind  in  what- 
ever way  acquired,  which  are  supported  by  a  decided 
preponderance  of  evidence  satisfactory  in  its  kind  and 
sufficient  in  its  amount. 

Note. — The  terms  certainiiy  and  evidence  are  used  in  a 
subjective  and  in  an  objective  sense.  Objective  certainty 
may  be  predicated  of  the  object  of  knowledge  and  it  exists 
whether  known  or  not.  So  there  may  exist  objective  evi- 
dence independently  of  the  mind's  estimate  of  it. 

Subjective  certainty  is  a  condition  of  the  mind  in  regard 
to  and  depends  on  and  corresponds  with  the  evidence  as 
the  mind  is  able  to  discern  and  comprehend  it.  Certain 
things  may  and  are  often  denied. 

(c.)  Moral  evidence  is  the  only  evidence  with  which 
moral  responsibility  and  probation  may  be  connected  ;  by 


53 

the  use  of  which  character  may  be  formed,  developed  or 
tested.  In  its  nature,  when  of  satisfactor}'  kind  and  of 
sufficient  amount,  it  is  convincing  enough  to  warrant 
the  luost  momentous  responsibilities.  If  religious  truths 
were  intuitive  religion  would  be  removed  from  the  re- 
sponsible or  moral  life.  If  any  historical  or  positive 
religion  were  to  be  presented  to  men  so  that  the  evidence 
should  not  constitute  a  great  part  of  its  foundation  then 
its  historical  and  positive  elements  would  have  to  be 
brought  before  every  individual.  This  would  require  a 
greater  miracle  than  Christianity  claims  for  itself  There- 
fore it  is  not  against  Christianity  but /or  it  that  a  great 
portion  of  its  evid«ince  comes  second  hand.  It  is  of  the 
nature  of  moral  evidence  that  it  does  not  preclude  doubt, 
and  it  is  unreasonable  to  ask  or  expect  any  other  kind 
of  evidence  for  religion  otherwise,  it  would  have  to  be 
placed  on  intuitive  or  demonstrative  evidence.  Judge 
Greenleaf  on  the  "  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists  "  dis- 
cusses this  question  from  a  point  of  jurisprudence,  and 
says  "  the  subject  of  inquiry  is  a  matter  of  fact ;  the  truth 
of  matters  of  fact  rests  on  moral  evidence  alone.  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  they  relate  to  this  life  or 
the  next.  A  proposition  may  be  said  to  be  proved  when 
the  evidence  is  satisfactory  in  amount  and  quality  in 
favor  of  it.  The  only  legal  test  is  the  sufficiency  of  cir- 
cumstances to  satisfy  the  mind  and  conscience  of  a  man 
of  common  prudence  and  discretion,  and  so  to  convince 
him  that  he  would  venture  to  act  upon  that  conviction 
in  matters  of  the  highest  importance  to  his  own  inter- 
ests. 

4.  What  menial  conditions  are  essential  to  the  proper  esti- 
mating  of  moral  evidences  ? 

The  species  of  truth  and  the  process  by  which  it  is 
elicited,  make  this  consideration  very  important.  (  Vide 
Hamilton's  Logic  Chap.  32.)     These  conditions  are  : 

[a.)  Attention  ;  i.  e.,  an  effort  to  apprehend  the  phe- 
nomena in  their  bearings  and  relations. 

(6.)  An  effort  to  apprehend  and  rightly  estimate  other 
connected  phenomena. 

(c.)  Vigilance,  to  guard  against  the  arrest,  or  perver- 
sions of  this  intellectual  process  at  any  point,  in  any  way, 
or  in  any  other  interest  than  that  of  the  truth. 


54 

{d.)  Equity  ii)  balancing  the  various  evidence  that 
may  seem  to  point  in  opposite  directions.  Common  ex- 
perienceshows  thatt^uch  balancingisconstantly  necessary. 
The  senses,  the  memory,  the  witnesses,  often  are  contra- 
dictory. Where  there  is  no  direct  conflict  of  testimony 
there  may  be  real  or  alleged  improbabilities,  or  impossi- 
bilities. Evidence  has  to  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
improbability. 

"  The  grounds  of  disbelief,  are  a  state  of  mind  in 
which  we  are  fully  persuaded  that  some  opinion  or  asser- 
tion is  not  true,  even  though  great  evidence  in  its  favor 
is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  case,  there  may  be  reasons 
for  disbelief  The  generalization  of  one  group  of  facts 
may  be  set  against  another."  {Vide  Jno.  Stuart  Mill, 
Logic;  Chap.  XXV.) 

This  will  be  more  fully  considered  in  connection  with 
the  discussion  of  miracles.  It  is  sufficient  to  notice  here, 
that  the  probabilities  on  both  sides  must  be  taken  into 
account. 

5.  What  moral  conditions  are  essential  1o  the  right  treat- 
ment cf  moral  evidence  ? 

To  this  we  answer  : 

(a.)  An  apprehension  of  the  moral  responsibility 
which  always  rests  upon  us  in  weighty  evidence.  The 
moral  responsibility  begins  before  a  conclusion  is  reached, 
and  in  the  process  of  reaching  it. 

(6.)  Humility  as  opposed  to  Self-confidence  in  view 
of  our  own  infirmities,  and  the  magnitude  of  the  issues 
involved,  in  collecting  the  facts,  treating  them  properly 
and  then  striking  the  balance. 

(c.)  Prayerfulness  even  in  the  light  of  natural  religion. 

[d)  Willingness  to  abide  by  the  result.  The  resolute 
refusal  to  forestall  the  conclusions,  or  wrest  the  truth, 
forcing  it  to  an  issue  which  we  wish  to  reach.  The  mo- 
tive to  the  construction  of  confused  notions  and  the  use 
of  ambiguous  terms,  lies  commonly  in  a  half  perceived 
divergence  between  the  facts  and  the  claims  of  the  sys- 
tem. The  will  controls  science  very  much;  the  purity 
of  conscience  is  necessary  to  science  as  well  as  a  continued 
loyalty  of  the  will. 

6.  What  kinds  of  moral  evidence  are  offered  for  our  de- 
cision on  the  claim  of  Christianity  ? 


55 

As  commonly  presented  the  evideiioea  of  Chriatianity 
are  grouped  under  tliree  heads; 

(a.)  Internal:  (6.)  External ;  [c]  Collateral. 

(a.)  By  Internal  Eridenee  has  beeti  and  is  meant  gen- 
erally, the  evidence  of  tiie  divinity  of  Christianitv  sup- 
plied in  and  by  its  substance  and  structure.  Christianity 
is  contemplated  as  a  religion  purporting  to  come  from 
God.  We  ask,  what  in  the  system  itself  supports  this 
claim  ?  We  compare  it  with  what  we  have  elsewhere 
learned  of  God. 

{b.)  External  Evidence,  is  supplied  by  something  dis- 
tinctive and  characteristic  in  the  way  in  which  the 
Christian  Religion  was  introduced  into  the  world.  Chris- 
tianity claims  to  have  been  comtnunicated  to,  and  not 
discovered  by  man  ;  what  is  the  proof  of  this  claim  ?  Our 
attention  is  at  once  called  to  the  methods  by  which  it 
was  introduced  ;  to  extraordinary  powers  and  knowledge 
given  to  its  early  propagators.  Miraculous  and  pro- 
phetic powers  are  said  to  be  exercised  by  those  who 
ushered  in  Christianitv.  External  evidence  does  not 
include  all  evidence  outside  of  the  internal.  It  has  ref- 
erence only  to  those  peculiar,  historical  elements  already 
referred  to. 

[c.)    Collateral  or  auxiliary  evidence. 

This  term  is  convenient  for  covering  all  other  evi- 
dence, which  is  not  included  in  the  two  former  chisses. 
There  may  be  proofs  found  in  the  extent  of  the  results, 
in  the  influence  of  the  work,  and  the  quality  of  the 
agencies  which  contributed  to  the  issue.  The  apostles 
were  the  small  human  instrumentalities,  whereby  the 
inherent  power  of  Christianity  effected  its  results.  God 
has  been  operating  with  it  and  in  it,  making  whatever 
was  hostile  to  it,  contribute  to  its  progress. 

This  collateral  evidence  is  allied  to  internal  evidence 
in  so  far  forth  as  what  Christianity  accomplishes  proceeds 
from  what  it  is.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  allied  to  exter- 
nal evidence  in  that  it  was  outsi-de  of  the  substance  and 
structure  of  Christianity.  It  is  external  to  Christianity 
as  a  system  of  truth,  but  internal  to  it  as  a'dispeusation. 

The  comparative  measure  of  the  strength  of  these 
classes  of  evidence  is  variously  estimuted.  Some  dispar- 
age external   evidence ;  others  (Mozey  ;   Bampton  Leo- 


56 

tures)  emphasize  the  practical  results  of  Christianity  as 
an  evidence. 

Generally  the  internal  evidences  are  of  a  philo- 
sophical sort  :  the  external  evidences  are  of  an  historical 
sort.  The  former  are  founded  on  the  fitness  of  Christianity 
to  do  what  it  claims  to  do;  the  latter  are  matters  of 
history  and  fact.  The  internal  evidences  cannot  be  es- 
tablished without  the  historical.  Some  of  the  doctrines 
themselves  involve  historical  facts,  and  the  external  evi- 
dences are  not  worth  much  if  nothing  is  known  of  the 
system  to  which  they  attest.  The  terms  are  arbitrary  ; 
they  have  no  special  relation  to  religion.  The  evidences 
ought  to  grow  out  of  religion,  and  to  be  so  grouped  as  to 
immediately  suggest  to  the  mind,  their  essential,  applied 
character.  It  is  for  this  reason  therefore,  that  this  sys- 
tem of  the  classification  of  evidences  has  fallen  into  dis- 
use. Apologetics  is  now  treated  as  a  distinct  branch  of 
Christian  Science,  having  two  departments,  viz.  (1.)  The 
Philosophical,  and  (2.)  the  Historical.  Christianity  is  in 
part  a  body  of  historical  facts,  and  in  part  a  system  of 
religious  truths,  moral  precepts.  We  are  to  inquire  into 
the  credibility  of  the  historical  facts,  and  into  the  rea- 
sonableness of  the  precepts,  then  its  consequences.  If  this 
be  a  true  history  what  follows  ?  These  two  branches 
are  to  be  investigated  by  special  methods. 


57 


THE  HISTORICAL  BRANCH. 

The  nature  and  claims  of  Christiainty  as  a  histoiical  Re- 
ligion. 

Looked  at  from  a  liistorical  jioint  of  view  what  reason 
is  tliere  for  believinj^  tliat  Christianity  is  the  true,  author- 
itative and  divinely  sanetioiied  reliji^ioii,  f)r  ns  and  for 
all  men  ?  Assuming  that  there  is  a  superiority  in  Chris- 
tianity over  all  other  reliixions,  is  it  so  orpeat  as  to  estab- 
lish its  elaim  of  divine  oriijin  ?  Is  it  of  such  a  kind  as 
to  justify  this  claim?  Christianity  cannot  l)e  satisfied 
with  a  mere  comparison  with  other  systems ;  it  contrasts 
itself  with  them  ;  it  insists  that  the  results  of  this  com- 
parison shall  be  a  co.ntrast  so  clear,  so  true,  so  distinct 
as  to  convince  all  that  it  is  tJic  true  religion.  Is  there 
anything  in  Christianit}^  to  prove  it  to  be  the  true  relig- 
ion, historically  ?  When  this  is  established  the  exam- 
ination of  it  as  a  philosophical  system  follows. 

Reasons  for  first  considering  the  historical  aspects  of 
Christian  if)/. 

(1.)  The  idea  of  Christianity  came  into  the  world, 
through  its  historical  facts.  Without  these  historical 
occurrences  the  world  would  never  have  had  tlie  idea  of 
Christianity. 

(2.)  Many  of  the  elements  in  the  idea  of  Christianity 
are  in  themselves  historical  facts  ;  not  merely  metaphysi- 
cal concepts,  or  moral  precepts;  e.  g.  sin,  ruin,  incarna- 
tion, and  the  atonement  are  not  merely  conceivable 
elements  but  actual  fact?.  If  the  philosoi)hical  argument 
shall  have  power,  it  must  be  founded  on  historical  facts. 

(3.)  The  philosophical  argument  itself  viewed  as  such 
will  be  more  earnestly  and  hopefully  conducted,  when 
the  historical  truth  of  the  facts  with  which  it  is  concerned 
is  exhibited  to  the  mind.  The  whole  moral  nature  is 
concerned  with  Christianity;  it  needs  facts  to  establish 
faith.  .  -  • 

(4.)  Christianity  is  an  actual  reality.  It  is  not  a  mere 
system  of  truth  ;  it  has  a  historical  existence  which  must 
be  accounted   for.     The  Scri[>tures  exist;  their  produc- 


58 

tion,  reception  and  influence  must  be  accounted  for,  and 
even  those  ideas  or  facts  wliicli  are  least  historical  in  their 
character  come  to  our  knowledge  with  fact's  that  are 
historical. 

(5.)  It  is  the  experience  with  those  portions  of  Chris- 
tendom in  which  the  historical  character  of  Christianity 
has  been  most  denied,  or  lightly  esteemed,  that  the  whole 
Christian  argument  is  most  lightly  treated.  The  prac- 
tical }iower  of  Christianity  has  suffered  bej'ond  estimate. 
The  argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christianity  snfters 
when  it  is  attempted  to  vindicate  it,  on  any  other  than 
its  historical  basis. 

"  Not  the  facts,  but  tlie  idea  of  Christianity,  are  the 
objects  of  faith."  (Hedge.)  This  is  the  rationalistic  wi>y 
of  reasoning;  as  against  this,  we  claim,  that  we  get  the 
ideal  from  the  real  and  historical  Christianity.  It  seems 
tlien,  to  be  of  the  greatest  consequence  to  determine  iirst 
whether  there  is  a  historical  Christianity  and  then,  to 
proceed  to  the  philosophical  argument. 

Historical  Christianity  as  a  fact  to  be  accounted  for. — 
Christianity  now  exists.  It  has  existed  for  eighteen 
hundred  years.  These  are  historical  phenomena  for 
which  we  are  bound  to  seek  an  explanation.  Secular, 
hostile  testimonies  carry  the  origin  of  Christianity  back 
into  the  first  century.  It  is  well  attested  that  it  then  had 
a  definite  character;  that  it  sustained  very  remarkable 
relations,  both  to  the  Jewish  and  to  the  Roman  world. 
It  had  very  positive,  historical  beliefs.  Its  great  histori- 
cal characteristics  stood  in  relation  to  these  historical 
facts.  The  historical  existence  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not 
disputed.  The  fact  that  the  church  was  what  it  was,  on 
the  ground  of  what  it  believed  in  regard  to  Him,  is  con- 
ceded, as  also  the  fact  that  this  ground  is  historical. 

Four  epistles  of  Paul,  are  admitted  even  by  the  Tiibin- 
g.en  school  as  genuine.  (Romans,  Galatians  and  I.  and 
II.  Corinth.)  In  these  there  are  facts  regarding  Christ. 
Compare  Rom.  15:  18-19;  2  Corinth.  12:  12;  Gal.  3: 
5  ;  1  Corinth.  12:  4-11  ;  1  Corinth.  14;  Romans  15:  18. 

Tliese  allusions  have  to  be  accounted  for;  there  are 
also  events  in  the  life  of  Christ  referred  to  as  within  the 
belief  and  knowledge  of  those  to  whom  they  write,  (Comp. 
1   Cor.   15  ;  Rom.  6  :  4-9  ;  Rom.   8  :  34 ;  2  Cor.  4  :  14  ; 


59 

Gal.  3  :  18  ;  Gal.  6  :  14).  How  had  these  facts  come  to  be 
believed  bjjncn  of  Jewish  and  Pa<;aii  antecedents  when  so 
few  influences  favored  their  acceptance  and  so  manv  op- 
posed ?  Row  (in  "  The  Supernatural  in  Christianity")  pre- 
sents five  indisputable  facts  in  regard  to  the  bei^inninirs 
of  Christianity,  viz.  (a.)  That  at'  the  year  25  A.  D.  the 
Christian  society  had  no  existence,  (b.)  In  40  A.  D.  it 
was  in  ri<rorous  growth,  (c.)  It  was  founded  by  Jesus 
Christ,  (d.)  The  crucifixion  of  Christ  by  the  Roman 
governor  caused  a  temporary  collapse  of  this  society,  (e.) 
That  an  event  of  some  kind  which  took  place  shortly 
after  his  death  imparted  to  it  a  new  life  which  it  never 
lost  and  which  gave  it  a  power  not  possessed  bj-any  other 
community  we  know. 

These  were  abundantly  open  to  verification  and  every 
interest  and  scruple  called  for  the  most  searching  scrutiny 
before  belief.  In  the  first  Christian  Apology  by  Qnadra- 
tus  some  of  these  aspects  of  Christianity  are  alluded  to 
in  connection  with  these  historical  truths.  There  were 
other  things  supersensnal  the  acceptance  of  which  was 
not  asked  of  any  man  except  on  the  previous  belief  of 
the  historical  facts.  The  Christian  church  then,  would 
have  been  insignificant  if  there  had  not  been  produced  in 
it  a  profound  historical  conviction  ;  but  this  conviction  is 
found  not  only  in  those  who  received  Christianity,  but 
also  in  others  who  while  admitting  the  facts,  refused  to 
follow  them  to  their  logical  conclusion. 

After  this  time  there  were  several  sources  from  which 
these  facts  could  have  been  derived,  viz.  (1.)  Personal 
observation  ;  (2.)  Oral  tradition  ;  (3.)  Written  docu- 
ments;  (4.)  Monumental  institutions,  observances  and 
emblems  ;  e.  g.  the  Sabbath,  sacrameiits  ;  the  dove  as 
the  symbol  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  vine  found  in  Chris- 
tian art  very  early,  in  the  Catacombs,  etc.  (5.)  Significant 
changes  and  omissions.  The  cessation  of  sacrifice  is  ex 
plained  on  the  ground  of  the  Christians'  belief  that  the 
death  of  Christ  meant  something  in  relation  to  sacrifice. 
There  may  be  several  hypotheses  to  explain  these  facts. 

A.  The  hypothesis  of  the  reality  of  the  things  be- 
lieved in.  This  afibrds  a  simple  and  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  facts  of  their  influence. 

B.  Other  hypotheses.  There  are  four  in  number, 
viz.  :     1.  The   legendary ;  2.    the   mythical ;    3.  that  of 


•60 


innocent  and  unconscious  deception,  and  4.  tliat  of  will- 
ful deception  by  those  who  were  the  authors  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

1.  The  Legendary  Ilj/pothesis. —  Thh  tlieory  supposes 
that  the  early  historical  belief  rests  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent on  vague  and  reputed,  unveriiied  and  unveriliablo 
body  of  legends.  It  starts  with  the  fact  that  there  is  in 
every  people  a  mass  of  unwritten  infoi-mation  in  regard 
to  the  past.  Antecedent  to  the  existence  of  written  his- 
tory, tradition  must  be  the  source  of  history.  It  as- 
sumes in  regard  to  the  gospel  luirrative  that  it  must  hove 
arisen  in  this  way,  and  that  it  soon  i)ecanie  and  is  now 
impossible  to  tell  which  is  the  historical  nucleus  in  this 
mass  of  legends.  There  would  have  been  more  plausi- 
bility in  this  theory,  if  there  had  been  a  lapse  of  one  or 
two  centuries  between  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  churcli  :  if  the  definite  record  had  not 
been  made  at  once,  or  havijig  been  made  had  perished  ; 
or  if  these  events  had  occurred  at  a  time  and  under  cir- 
cumstances which  prevented  the  making  of  a  record    at 


once 


But  the  church  was  in  existence  within  ten  years  of 
the  death  of  Christ;  can  it  be  explained  that  it  came 
then  to  be  what  it  was  on  the  ground  of  a  legend  ?  (See 
1  John  1  :  1.)  This  was  neither  in  the  Jewish  or  Roman 
world,  a  legendary  age.  According  to  the  most  critical 
schools  there  were  letters  written  by  Paul  to  churches  at 
Roirie,  Corinth,  Galatia  ;  these  churches  were  well  de- 
veloped ;  they  contained  Gentile  elements,  not  predis- 
posed to  accept  Jewish  legends.  The  writer  of  these 
epistles  would  not  make  use  of  legends;  there  is  hardly 
a  mind  known  to  us  in  modern  or  ancient  times,  who  is 
less  likely  to  do  so.  On  the  supposition  that  these  books 
were  not  written  till  in  the  second  century,  the  existence 
of  the  church  is  unaccountable. 

2,  The  MytJdcal  Hypothesis. — This  theorj'  must  accom- 
plish three  things  if  it  is  to  succeed  as  against  Chris- 
tianity ;  (a.)  It  must  dispose  of  the  gospel  narrative  as  a 
narrative;  (h.)  It  must  dispose  of  the  gospel  history  in 
the  narrative  ;  {c.)  It  must  explain  away  the  character  of 
Christ  himself.  It  must  prove  Christ  to  be  not  real,  but 
an  idea  fashioned  to  express  certain  ideals,  not  historical  , 


61 

reality.  (Geo.  Mathosoii  on  "The  Originality  of  Christ" 
ill  Coiiteni[)oiary  Review.)  ('/.)  The  attempt  to  (lis[)oso 
of  the  gospel  history.  This  theory  admits  a  nnclens, 
but  does  not  define  how  niiieli.  It  claims  that  abont  this 
iincleus  there  is  gathered  an  enveloi)e  of  approximate 
facts,  sncli  as  might  rcsnit  from  oral  tradition.  But  aside 
from  this  material  it  finds  a  considei-able  amount  of  nar- 
rative historical  in  form  but  not  in  reality.  It  admits 
three  elements,  truth,  approximate  truth,  and  myth.  It 
draws  an  analogy  from  the  mythical  periods  in  Greece 
a^nd  Rome ;  also  from  the  apocryidia!  gospels  of  the 
centuries.  It  exonerates  the  original  authors  from  the 
intention  of  deception  ;  even  those  who  incorporated 
these  myths  into  the  Scripture  narrative,  did  not  mean 
to  deceive;  they  were  simjily  wanting  in  discrimination. 
This  theory  meets  with  two  difficulties.  (1.)  It  cannot 
account  for  the  existence  of  the  myths.  (2.)  Tlie  myths 
would  not  account  for  the  facts: 

(1.)  It  seems  impossible  to  account  for  the  origination 
or  acceptance  of  the  alleged  myths. 

(a.)  It  is  an  assumption  that  the  beginning  of  historical 
movements  calls  into  exercise  the  myth  creating  spirit; 
(6.)  It  is  equally  an  assumption  that  Chi'istianity  begin- 
ning wdien  and  where,  and  as  it  did,  must  have  called 
into  exercise. these  myth  making  tendencies.  It  did  not 
begin  in  the  early  mythical  age  of  Greece,  nor  were  the 
men  and  circumstances  such  as  to  warrant  this  assump- 
tion, (c.)  It  is  an  assumption  further,  that  the  Apocryphal 
books  show  the  actual  existence  and  working  of  this 
niytli  making.spirit  at  the  time, place,  and  on  the  theme  of 
the  gospel  narrative.  The  very  shallowness  of  tlie  Apoc- 
ryphal books  shows  that  they  are  counterfeits  of  historical 
fact.  They  are  legeiidary  in  their  character,  rather  than 
mythical,  [d.)  The  question  arises  where  did  the  friends 
and  followers  of  Christ,  being  plain  and  prosaic  men,  get 
such  ideas  as  made  the  germ  of  these  alleged  myths. 
The  Christ  of  the  gospel  is  not  the  Christ  ot^  the  Jews. 
Did  they  bring  these  peculiar  ideas  to  embellish  the 
Christ  of  history;  or  did  they  receive  them  from  Him? 
How  did  they  attach  these  noble  ideas  to  a  character 
which  was  so  much  like  others  ?  How  did  they  come  to 
convince  others  who  had  seen  the  real  Christ,  of  the 
truth  of  these  ideal  conceptions. 


62 

(e.)  Ill  rec^ard  to  the  acceptance  of  this  hypothesis 
after  the  myths  ha<l  been  created  ;  it  is  evident  that  if 
there  would  be  a  ditiiculty  of  one  kind  at  one  time,  dur- 
ing the  life  of  Christ,  there  would  be  a  difficulty  of 
another  kind  in  displacinsj  the  orijjinal  true  account  at  a 
later  day,  and  substituting  this  fanciful  mythical  story. 
All  traces  of  such  a  struggle  between  two  narratives  if 
there  was  any,  have  vanished  ;  the  men  who  imposed 
their  account  succeeded  in  erasing  every  evidence  that 
there  was  a  struggle. 

(2.)  The  myths  cannot  account  for  the  facts.  If  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  Christianity  was  developed 
in  several  generations;  if  it  is  based  on  fiction,  it  is  still 
harder  to  see  how  it  was  established  within  ten  years. 
Then  there  is  the  difficulty  of  transforming  the  earlier 
church  wdiich  grew  on  a  basis  of  facts,  to  the  later  Chris- 
tianity which  is  based  on  myths;  and  the  accomplishing 
of  this  without  any  apparent  difficult}-  and  with  u  com- 
plete obliteration  from  all  the  records,  of  the  abandoning 
of  the  real  for  the  ideal  and  mythical. 

3.  The  Hypothesis  of  Deception  in  regard  to  many  and 
cardinal  facts. — There  are  two  forms  of  this  hypothesis 
(1.)  Unconscious  and  innocent  deception.  (2.)  That  of 
wilful  deception.  In  each  the  hypothesis  may  be  so  con-, 
structed  as  to  place  the  deception  in  Christ,  or  in  the 
early  disciples. 

(a.)  So  far  as  the  hypothesis  relates  to  Christ  himself, 
we  are  asked  to  believe  that  Christianity  was  built  on  a 
foundation  of  deceptions,  of  which  Christ  was  either  the 
innocent,  or  the  designing  author.  In  the  first  case,  our 
feeling  towards  Him  would  be  that  of  pity.  In  the 
second  that  of  aversion  and  abhorrence ;  and  in  both 
cases,  we  would  be  thrown  into  the  greatest  perplexity 
with  regard  to  the  early  account  of  Christ  in  the  gospels. 
How  could  this  deluded  enthusiast  have  produced  such 
impressions  as  have  influenced  the  world  ?  The  recon- 
ciliation of  the  theory  of  deception  and  the  facts  is  im- 
possible. Both  in  quantity,  and  in  quality,  the  results 
of  the  impressions  produced  are  beyond  any  expectation 
from  either  an  enthusiast  or  an  imposter.  But  Chri&t 
gained  immediate  success  with  His  enemies,  as  well  as 
with  His  friends  and  dupes.     If  He  was  an  impostor  He 


63 

completely  dwarfed  all  other  men  in  history.  We  throw 
back  with  indignation  this  hypothesis  of  a  deceived  or 
a  deceiving  Christ. 

The  older  rationalism  paid,  that  the  gospel  history 
was  iruthful  in  intention,  but  not  in  fact.  It  made  a 
distinction  between  facts  and  the  narration  of  facts.  It 
offered  naturalistic  explanations  of  the  supernatural ;  but 
was  set  aside  as  shallow.  This  theory  is  obliged  to 
transform  the  faith  of  the  early  church  which  faith  was 
"  in  Jesus,"' to  a  "faith  of  Jesus,"  transferred  to  His 
disciples.  The  more  intentional  deception  introduced 
by  Strauss  and  Renan  is  still  more  incapable  of  account- 
ing for  the  facts,  and  thereiore  more  repulsive. 

(b.)  So  far  as  it  relates  to  the  early  followers  of 
Christ  and  the  authors  of  tlie  New  Testament,  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  they  were  the  dupes  of  some  strange 
influence  or  else  participators  in  the  deception.  If  the 
first  supposition  be  true  we  can  but  be  sorry  for  them,  if 
the  second  we  reject  them,  but  in  either  case  we  have 
the  gospel  history  to  account  for  with  its  marvellous 
appearance  of  honesty.  We  have  the  conduct  of  the 
men  to  explain  as  well  as  the  admitted  facts  of  early  Chris- 
tianity. Renan  asserts  that  during  the  middle  and  latter 
part  of  his  career  Christ  was  constrained  inwardly  and 
outwardly  to  claim  Messianic  attributes  which  He  knew 
he  did  not  possess.  The  difficulty  is  again,  to  explain 
how  the  disciples  succeeded  in  hiding  what  they  knew 
to  be  true.  They  seem  to  have  duped  their  own  gener- 
ation who  had  other  independent  sources  of  information. 
We  shall  also  need  to  account  for  the  extraordinary  re- 
ligious doctrines  which  they  taught.  How  could  they 
teach  such  pure  morality,  while  following  a  false  Christ. 
If  the  characters  themselves  were  under  the  power  of  this 
deception  then  Christianity  is  the  product  of  a  misunder- 
standing. {Vide  Uhlhorn;  "Modern  Representations 
of  the  Life  of  Christ.")  Fitzgerald  says ("  Aids  to  Faith") 
"the  theory  amounts  to  this,  that  they  had  no  origin  at 
all."  To  illustrate  the  nature  and  difficulties  of  these 
four  hypotheses^  let  them  be  applied,  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  Ciirist.  The  church  stakes  its  exist- 
ence on  this  event,  and  the  account  given  of  it  in  the 
Scriptures.     It  is  believed  to  be  a  true  occurrence.     This 


64 

hypothesis  accounts  for  (1.)  tlie  narrative  (2.)  the  char- 
acter aiul  conduct  of  tlie  first  disciples;  (3.)  the  estab- 
lishment and  rise  of  Christiaiiitj  and  its  proijressive 
triumplis.  The  narrative  of  the  gospels;  the  life  and 
institutions  of  tlie  Chi'istian  church  ;  the  hopefulness  and 
steadfastiict-s  of  the  disciples  iniply  a  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection, and  the  belief'iniplies  the  certainty  of  the  event. 
How  is  it  with  the  other  liyp()tlieses.  (c/.)  Did  the  be- 
lief in  the  resurrection  grow  out  of  a  legend  or  myth? 
When  the  avowedly  genuine  Epistlesof  Paul  appeared,  it 
was  twenty-two  to  twent^'-nine  years  after  this  event  liad 
occurred.  In  these  Epistles  Paul  alludes  to  the  resur- 
rection ;  consents  to  be  called  a  false  witness,  to  give  up 
everything,  if  the  resui-rection  is  proved  a  false  event; 
he  also  reasons  on  the  ground  of  it.  When  he  wrote 
these  allusions,  his  active  ministry  had  been  extended 
over  twenty  3-ear8,  so  that  the  event  took  place,  within 
ten  years  of  his  ministry. 

He  appeals  to  other  witnesses  of  the  event;  to  hun- 
dreds of  believers  ;  he  asserts  that  the  churches  of  Jeru- 
salem and  Antioch  were  founded  in  it.  When,  where 
and  how  did  tie  myth  of  the  Resuiection  grow  up  ?  How 
did  .this  new  belief  so  completely  obliterate  any  [)revious 
belief,  that  there  remains  no  trace  of  it ;  any  previous 
belief  that  might  have  been  in  existence,  back  of  the 
myth.  How  did  the  myth  or  legend  of  a  risen  Christ 
arise?  Wh}'  was  the  old  belief  given  up  ?  "The  res- 
urrection is  never  presented  as  the  embodiment  of  a 
great  hope,  or  the  consequence  of  some  preconceived 
idea  of  the  Messiah,"  (Westcott  "The  Gospel  of  the 
Resurrection.'')  The  fact  came  first,  not  the  hope  or 
doctrine. 

(a.)  Did  the  belief  grow  out  of  deception,  either  con- 
scious or  innocent? 

The  supposition  of  a  designed  deception,  is  so  violent, 
that  it  has  no  longer  any  credence.  Christ  himself  could 
not  have  originated  this  belief,  except  he  revived  after  a 
fainting  and  exhaustion,  but  did  not  die  on  the  cross. 

The  deceit  in  tlds  case  would  lie  in  -  liis  not  leaving 
been  dead  :  but  after  his  restoration,  is  it  credible  that 
a  half  dead  man,  needing  a  physician,  could  produce  on 
the  minds  of  his    disciples    the  impression   that   he   had 


65 

risen  again,  and  this  after  liaviiig  disappeared  for  a  few- 
days  ?  Strauss  admits  the  validity  of  this  reasoning.  If 
the  conscious  deceptioii  is  in  sonje  other  way  the  foun- 
dation of  a  risen  Christ,  the  churcli  rests  on  a  falsehood. 
If  it  was  an  unconscious  deception  it  could  have  been 
wrought  in  one  of  two  ways;  (1.)  either  the  disciples 
thoroughly  mistook  somebody  else  for  Christ,  for 
forty  days,  and  repeatedly,  and  went  away  hopeful,  con- 
fident to  persuade  men  to  believe  in  His  resurrection, 
and  to  die  for  it;  or  (2.)  they  mistook  the  hallucinations, 
phantoms  of  their  imagination.  They  saw  a  vision, 
iiaving  no  objective  reality.  This  is  the  favorite  tlieorv 
now  amojig  many  Germans.  It  is  said  that  the  disciples 
were  so  excited,  that  they  thought  they  perceived  Jesus 
risen.  That  hundreds  simultaneously  and  at  repeated 
instances  saw  visions,  and  in  consfquence  changed  their 
lives,  and  influenced  the  world,  would  be  a  greater  mira- 
cle than  the  real  miracle  of  the  resurrection.  There  are 
reasons  wliy  we  should  have  special  evidences  of  this 
fact,  and  we  do  have  such  evidence;  in  fact  considering 
the  weight  of  these  special  evidences,  the  difliculties  in 
the  way  of  receiving  either  one  of  the  above  accounts 
are  greater  than  the  historical  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
belief  in  the  resurrection.  Some  (Baur  and  Zeller) 
altogether  discard  the  miraculous  from  history,  no  mat- 
ter what  tlie  evidence  may  be. 

Christiatiity  professes  to  give  an  account  of  itself  in 
historical  documents.  These  are  the  authoritative 
standing  sources  of  our  knowh.dge  of  its  historical  char- 
acter. Some  critics  sa^-,  that  we  cannot  ascribe  reliably 
a  single  sentence  to  Christ.  The  New  Testament,  it  is 
said,  correctly  sets  forth  the  faith  of  the  2d  century; 
but  we  liave  no  evidence  that  it  describes  the  facts  of 
the  1st.  What  evidence  then  have  we  to  trust  any  part 
of  the  Christian  Scriptures  ?  This  leads  us  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  nature  and  value  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures as  a  source  of  information  concerning  Christianity. 


66 


THE    CHRISTIAN  SCRIPTURES. 

Tlie  vature  and  value  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  as  a 
source  of  information  concernirir/   Christianity. 

(1.)  The  Chri.-*tian  Scriptures  are  not  our  only  source 
of  iiiforr.iation.  We  may  derive  some  information  from 
tlie  C'liristian  life  as  now  exhibited  ;  some  concerning 
the  [)ast,  from  ecclefiastieal  and  secnhir  history.  If  we 
go  back  far  enough,  we  would  find  a  tradition — strongly 
emphasized  still  by  the  oriental  and  Romish  churches. 
But  for  the  existence  of  tlie  Scriptures  we  may  admit, 
that  tradition  would  have  been  in  some  degree  reliable. 
Wemust  remember  that  for  a  brief  period,  men  depended 
entirely  on  tradition  for  their  ideas  of  Christianity, 
The  Scriptures  are  not  merely  a  source  of  information. 
(2.)  Their  entire  value  does  not  consistin,  and  istiot  bound 
by  their  cliaracter  as  sources  of  historical  knowledge. 
They  profess  to  express  to  us,  the  present  mind  of  God ; 
they  are  a  permanent  and  present  divine  instrument  for 
promoting  God's  purposes,  yet  their  value  in  these  and 
other  respects  is  bound  up  largely  with  their  reliableness 
as  a  soui'ce  of  information  for  nuittei'S  of  history. 

(8.)  Christianity  as  it  exists  and  has  existed  in  the 
earth  owes  its  existence  very  largely  to  the  conviction 
which  the  church  has  had  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures  and 
the  use  which  it  has  made  of  them.  What  Christianity 
has  beeti  and  done  is  due  to  the  opinion  of  believers  in 
regard  to  these  books,  and  the  estimation  in  which  they 
were  held.  It  is  true  Christianity  existed  for  twenty-five 
years  without  them  ;  just  as  the  old  dispensation  existed 
long  before  it  had  its  Scriptures.  But  undoubtedly 
Christianity  would  have  changed  greatly  without  them. 

(4.)  We  cannot  so  separate  Christianity  from  the 
j-eliableness  of  testimony  as  that  the  decision  which  men 
reach  in  regard  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures, 
be  a  matter  of  indiflerence.  The  defense  of  Christianity  is 
imperilled  by  looseness,  not  by  strictures  in  regard  to 
our  belief  concerning  the  Scriptures.  Therefore,  this 
point  should  be  emphasized  as  against  those  who  advise 


67 

UR  to  confine  our  defense  to  Christijinity  as  a  system  ;  to 
drop  the  advocacy  of  the  Scriptures  and  preach  Christ. 

(5.)  The  Scriptures  have  on  legal  piinciples  a  i)re- 
suniptive  value,  and  a  reliahleness,  as  a  source  of  infor- 
rViation  concerning  Christianity.  Judge  Greenleaf 
("Testimony  of  the  Evangelists"  pp.  26,  27,)  writing  as 
a  Jurist,  says;  "the  lirst  inquiry  when  a  document  is 
offered  as  evidence  in  court  is,  whether  it  comes  from 
the  proper  repository  ;  whether  it  is  found  in  the  place, 
and  under  the  care  of  persons  with  whom  it  might  reason- 
ahly  be  expected  to  be  found.  This  custody  gives  authen- 
ticity to  the  documents  which  come  from  such  a  place 
and  bear  no  evident  marks  of  foi-gery, — the  law  presumes 
their  genuineness.  It  lies  with  the  objector  to  disprove 
them.  This  is  precisely  the  case  with  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  They  have  been  received  from  time  imme- 
morial, and  are  found  in  the  right  custody.  If  it  be  said 
that  the  originals  are  lost,  the  law  provides  that  copies 
are  to  be  accepted,  when  the  multiplication  of  such 
copies  was  a  publicly  known  fact,  in  the  faithfulness  of 
vN-'hich,  all  the  community  had  an  interest.  On  matters 
of  general  and  public  interest  every  man  must  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  conversant,  and  supposed  to  be  cognizant 
of  them.  The  prevailing  current  of  assertion  is  resorted 
to  in  such  matters  as  evidence.  The  persons  who  mul- 
tiplied the  copies  are  agents  of  the  public,  for  whose  use 
the  copies  are  made.  Thus  made,  the  copies  are  entitled, 
on  the  ground  of  credit  due  to  the  men  who  made  them, 
to  an  extraordinary  degree  of  confidence,  and  as  in  the 
case  of  official  registers,  it  is  not  necessary  that  they 
should  be  further  confirmed  or  sanctioned. 

2.  Historical  criticism  in  relation  to  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tares. — The  documents'which  form  the  Christiati  Scrip- 
tures from  their  very  form,  as  well  as  by  much  of  their 
contents,  invite  criticism.  For  the  most  part  they  are 
tiot  vague  and  general,  teaching  truths  which  had  been 
known  long  before,  but  definite;  most  of  the  truths 
sriven  in  them  are  written  under  historical  conditions 
which  are  known.  In  the  case  of  many  of  the  docu- 
ments, the  form  which  they  take  is  produced  by  the  age, 
the  places,  the  persons  connected  with  them.  If  there 
are  positive,  divine   dispensations,  instituted  and  main- 


,68 

tained,  tliese  must  have  been  under  historical  conditions. 
Communications  were  made  at  ditterent  times  to  differ- 
ent men.  All  these  were  made  througli  human  instru- 
mentality, and  what  is  human  and  historic  in  their  com- 
position, must  be  dealt  witli  in  a  human  way.  And  yet 
we  must  insist  that  the  other  essential  characteristics  of 
the  Scriptures  shall  not  he  overlooked.  Wliat  then  are 
some  of  the  recognized  piinciples  of  historical  ^M'iticism 
which  should  he  applied  to  the  human  side  of  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures.  Von  Sybel  says;  "the  examination  of 
the  authors  of  an  historical  statement,  and  the  examining 
of  the  facts  according  to  their  connection  in  time  and 
space  and  causal  relation  ;  these  are  the  two  necessary 
conditions  of  historical  criticism,"  Prof.  Droysen  more 
exactly  and  analytically  defines:  "  the  province  of  criti- 
cism is  to  ascertain  in  what  relation  the  historical  mate- 
rial stands  to  those  acts  of  which  it  hears  witness."  The 
form  of  criticism  is  determined  by  the  relation  of  the 
materia!  to  its  authorship.  The  main  inquiries  there- 
fore in  criticism  are  four  in  number. 

(1.)  In  regard  to  Authenticity ;  (2.)  Integrity;  (3.) 
Correctness  and  (4.)  Sufficiency  and  Completeness. 

A.  The  first  inquiry  is  whether  the  material  submitted  to 
us  Is  really  what  it  is  supposed  or  claimed  to  be. 

The  demonstration  of  the  spuriousness  of  any  docu- 
ment is  complete  when  we  can  show  the  time,  the  origin 
and  the  aim  of  it  to  be  different  from  what  it  claims  to 
be.  Yet  a  spurious  document  may  indirectly  be  valuable 
to  history.  Diplomatics  as  a  department  of  criticism 
judges  of  the  authenticity  of  documents  by  external  sigi»s 
such  as  the  writing  materials,  the  styles  of  writing,  etc., 
etc.  Higher  criticism  answere  the  question,  is  the  docur 
ment  such  as  might  have  been  wuitten  under  the  histor- 
ical circumstances.  In  other  words  it  judges  by  internal 
signs. 

B.  Whether  the  material  before  us  is  in  unchanged  form  ; 
in  the  form  in  which  it  was  produced  and  was  meant  to 
remain  ;  or  if  it  has  been  changed,  what  alterations  inay 
be  detected  and  eliminated.  This  is  the  criticism  of  in- 
tegrity. 

C.  Whether  the  document  when  produced  did  give  ayid  can 
give  that  which  it  claims  to  establish  ;  or;  on  the  other  hand 


6? 

whether  at  the  time  of  its  prodnetioti  it  coiild  have  been, 
or  claimed  to  have  been  partially  or  relatively  correct. 
The  answer  is  e^iven  by  the  criticism  of  correctness,  i.  e. 
Credibility.  There  are  four  inqnfries  involved  in  this 
question  of  credibility.  (1.)  Whether  what  is  refuted, 
is  per  se  possible,  in  so  far  forth  as  human  exi^erience 
s:ives  us  any  criteria;  (2.)  Whether  in  i^^iven  conditions 
and  circumstances  it  is  possible  :  (3.)  Whether  in  the 
motives,  the  aims,  the  personal  narration  of  the  narrator, 
we  can  discover  an^-thinir  that  should  Warp  his  state- 
»nents ;  (4.)  Whether  incorrectness  is  unavoidable  in 
consequence  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  writer's  means  of 
observation.  Here  we  need  to  it)quire  into  (a.)  the  ca- 
pacity and  opportunity  ;  and  (b.)  the  disposition,  purposes 
and  circumstances,  or  either,  or  both  of  the  narrator. 
In  judging  of  the  sources  of  criticism  we  should  ask  what 
they  profess  to  give  ;  what  coloring  the  document  took, 
from  the  peculiarities  of  the  author  himself,  or  of  thv» 
place  or  age  in  which  he  wrote  it. 

D.  Whether  (he  material  before  us  contains  all  the 
elements  of  that  of  which  we  are  seeking  to  (fain  knowl- 
edge, or  whether  it  is  incomplete,  and  if  so  in  what  degree. 
All  historical  material  is  more  or  less  fragmentary. 
Therefore  there  should  be  a  constructive  criticism,  after 
the  destructive  processes  as  above  enumerated.  Here  it 
is  that  modern  criticism  is  at  fault.  It  does  not  attempt 
to  tell  how  much  is  reliable  and  true,  and  how  much  is 
to  be  rejected.  Historical  criticism  claims  to  apply  these 
principles  to  the  Scriptures.  But  in  doing  this,  great  care 
should  be  taken,  in  so  far  as  there  is  much  at  stake  on 
the  question. 

Our  means  of  ascertaining  the  reliability  of  these  books. 
If  the  Scriptures  are  to  supply  an  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomena  of  historical  Christianity,  they  must 
be  composed  of  authentic  documents  in  regard  to  the  life 
and  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  in  regard  to  the 
first  forms  of  doctrine  and  of  life  in  the  early  Apostolic 
church.  The  historical  is  the  doctrinal  itself;  the  essence 
of  Christianity  is  precisely  its  historical  part  (Schelling.) 
The  fact  of  the  resurrection  is  the  cardinal  doctrine,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  is  the  fundamental  fact  in 
the  Christian  Scriptures.     (JjQq^ow  '-'■  Inspiration.'')     The' 


^70 

final  question^jin  regard  to  the  Scriptures  is  that  of  their 
credibility.     Can  we  believe  them  ? 

Genuineness,  authenticity,  integrity  and  credibility 
are  terras  used  ambiguously.  There  is  some  confusion 
in  regard  to  their  exact  respective  meanings.  R.  Sole, 
"  English  Synonyms"  gives  authentic  a8(l.)  real,  veritable, 
uncorrupt  as  opposed  to  that  which  is  spurious  and  fic- 
titious: (2.)  Equivalent  to  reliable,  trustworthy,  worthy 
of  belief,  as  opposed  to  the  incredible.  The  first  definition 
has  reference  to  the  form,  the  second  to  the  contents  of 
the  document.  Where  the  usage  is  conflicting  it  is  best 
to  follow  one  definite  use  consistent!}'. 

Three  terms  are  sutncient  to  express  the  various 
qualities  which  criticism  demands  of  a  document.  These 
are.  Authenticity,  Integrity,  Credibility.  Genuineness 
is  included  in  Authenticity.  Aulhe/iticity  then  would 
signify  that  these  documents  ai'e  the  productions  of  the 
authors  or  at  least  of  the  age  and  class  of  persons  to 
whom  they  are  severally  distributed  and  reputed  by  the 
church. 

Integrity  would  show  that  they  are  incorrupt  in  form. 
Credibility^  that  they  are  reliable  in  the  statement  of  tacts. 
These  terms  are  in  point  of  fact  mutually  inferential.  The 
credibility  is  increased  when  the  authenticity  is  proved. 
When  we  know  the  competency  of  the  author;  his  up- 
rightness of  purpose  ;  his  opportunities  for  observing 
facts,  etc.,  then  wr-  rely  on  his  savings.  Humanly  speak- 
ing we  must  know  the  individual  witnesses,  and  we  must 
know  favorably  of  them.  When  the  testimony  is  anony- 
mous, we  want  some  ample  equivalent  in  the  form  of 
endorsement  by  the  early  church.  In  regard  to  the  New 
Testament  history  we  have  to  a  very  large  extent  the 
testimony  of  eye-witnesses  |»rovided  the  documents  are 
authentic  and  uncorrupt.  Compal-e  Acts  1 :  21-22  ;  Jno. 
1  :  14;  Jno.  21  :  24;  1  Jno.  1  :  1-3;  Luke  1  :  1-2  ;  1  Cor. 
15  :  3-12  ;  Heb.  2  :  3. 

To  what  documents  are  we  to  apply  these  principles 
of  historical  criticism  ?  We  go  back  fifteen  hundred 
years, and  find  that  acertain  numberof  l)ooksareaccepted, 
and  form  the  New  Testament  Canon.   What  is  the  Canon  ? 


71 


I. — THK    NEW    TESTAMENT    CANON. 

1.  Definition. 

"The  Canon  is  the  collection  of  Books  which  consti- 
tute the  original,  written  rule  of  the  Christian  faith." 
(Westcott;  ''  Canon  of  the  New  Testament:"  Fourth  Edition, 
London,  p.  1.  note.) 

"The  original  meaning  o\' xavajv  (connected  with  Heh. 
Kaneli.  xdvTj^xdvvrj^  can na  [canal is, channel,] cane, cannon) 
is  a  straight  rod,  as  a  ruler,  or  rarely  the  beam  of  a  balance  ; 
and  this  with  the  secondary  notion  either  (1.)  of  keeping 
anything  straight,  as  the  rods  of  a  shield,  or  the  rod,  [lic- 
tatorium)  used  in  weaving;  or  (2.)  of  testing  straightness 
as  a  carpenter's  rale,  and  even  \mi)ropev\y  a  plumb  line. 
From  a  sense  of  literal  measurements  naturally  followed 
the  metaphorical  use  of  xaucou  (like  regala,  norma,  rale,) 
to  express  that  which  serves  to  measure  or  determine  any- 
thing;  whether  in  Ethics,  as  the  good  man  (Ar.  Eth.  Nic. 
Ill,  4,  4)  or  in  Art,  as  the  Doryphorus  of  Polycietus, 
{xavii)u  ;)or  in  Language  as  the  "  Canons  of  Grammar." 
(Westcott,  ibid,  p.  499.) 
2.  Authorship. 

This  involves  two  questions  {a.)  by  whom  was  this 
collection  made  as  a  collection  of  books;  (6.)  by  whom 
was  the  collection  invested  with  its  authority  as  the 
written  rule  of  faith.     In  answer  to  the  first  question, 

(a.)  By  whom  was  this  collection  made,  we  answer, 

(1.)  The  church  and  no  individual  man  ; 

(2.)  The  church  as  a  whole,  and  not  the  church  as 
constituted  at  some  one  particular  time,  or  represented 
in  some  particular  place  ; 

(3.)  The  church  acting  gradually,  not  summarily  and 
decisively  at  any  one  point  of  time  ; 

(4.)  The  church  guided  by  the  instincts  of  its  own 
spiritual  life,  without  a  miraculous  intervention,  but  by  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  whose  inspiration  gave 
to  the  separate  books  their  form,  we  believe  has  also 
guided  the  church  to  the  selection  of  these  and  no  others 
out  of  the  mass  of  writings  as  human  productions,  and 
the  process  of  their  selection  a  human  process. 

{b.)  By  whom  or  by  what  was  this  collection  invested 
with  its  authority  ? 


72 

It  was  not  the  church,  for  the  church  could  not  have 
created  an  anthority  over  itself.  Some  Catholic  theolo- 
joians  have  nriaintained,  that  there  is  nothing  divine  in 
the  Scriptures,  except  what  the  church  has  given  them. 
They  hold  that  the  relation  ot  the  church  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures,  is  that  of  recognition  and  sub- 
jection, but  not  creation.  The  authority  of  the  canon 
is  intrinsic.  ,  It  grows  out  of  the  nature  of  the  book. 
That  this  was  the  view  taken  of  the  canon  by  the  early 
church  is  seen  from  the  usages  and  observances  known 
to  have  existed  in  the  church.  At  first  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  received  in  the  same  way  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament was  used  in  the  synagogue.  Basilides  (130  A. 
D.)  gives  the  earliest  testimony  in  regai-d  to  the  fact  that 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  Scriptures  are  [daced  on 
the  same  level.  "The  Epistles  of  Saint  Paul  aie  called 
Scriptures  ;"  "quotations  from  tliem  are  introduced  by  the 
well  known    form  'it  is  written.'"     ( Westcott,  pp.  288- 

On  what  principle  the  credit  of  canonical  authority 
was  given  to  these  writings  we  learn  in  three  ways: 

(1.)  From  the  language  used  by  the  early  churcii 
with  regard  to  the  separate  documents  universally  ac- 
cepted. 

(2.)  The  language  used  in  regard  to  those  which 
for  the  time  being  were  doubtful. 

(3.)  The  way  in  wliich  the  completer  canon  was 
treated  by  the  church.  The  church  received  no  pro- 
ductions which  were  not  believed  t<^  be  those  of  apostles 
or  of  apostolic  men,  prepared  for  the  guidance  of  the 
church.  Yet  they  were  not  i-eceived  as  human  produc- 
tions, but  as  the  productions  of  these  men,  writing  as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Herein  then  we 
have  a  double  criterion  ;  (a)  the  human  or  apostolic  au- 
thorship, and  (/3)  the  divine  or  inspiration.  When  the 
first  of  these  unique  writings  appeared  there  had  been  a 
believing  church  for  a  generation.  These  writings  were 
called  forth  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  church  then  exis- 
ting;  before  their  appearance  the  church  had  to  depend 
entirely  on  oral  tradition.  It  was  a  living  church  that 
accepted  and  recognized  them,  appealing  to  them  as  au- 
thoritative documents. 


73 

3.  Relations  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old  Testament 
canon.     Consider  niider  this  liead, 

[a.)  Wiiat  was  the  attitude  of  the  original  christian 
churcli  toward  the  Scriptnrcs  of  the  O.  T.  ? 

{b.)  Why  did  the  clmrch  need  any  other  Scriptures 
than  those  already  recognized  ?  and  how  was  it  hronjrht 
to  recognize  precisely  these  writings  which  became  the 
New  Testament  canon,  as  having  dignity  and  anthoritv? 
T(^  these  inquii'ies  we  give  the  following  answers  : 

(a.)  Attitude  of  the  early  church.  The  attitude  of  the 
early  church  would  naturally  and  plainly  he  determined 
by  the  attitude  of  Christ  ami  his  apostles!  We  find  that 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  the  original  rule  of 
written  faith,  so  far  as  that  rule  was  unfolded.  Christ 
and  his  apostles  speak  of  it  as  such.  They  remonstrated 
against  the  traditions  which  had  been  added  to  them. 
They  denied  all  other  literature  co-ordinate  authority; 
constantly  assumed  that  the  Old  Testament  points  to  a 
continuation  of  a  revelation.  The  continuity  of  this 
revelation  is  therefore  the  first  thing  to  be  estal>lished. 

Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  tlie  Jews  agree  in  regard 
to  the  Old  Testament;  but  he  parts  company  with  them 
in  claiming  that  lie  is  entitled  to  continue  the  revelation, 
which  claim  they  reject.  According  to  Josephvis,  the 
Old  Testament  canon  closed,  because  there  was  no  longer 
a  reliable  line  of  prophets.  The  Jews  did  not  believe 
that  God  had  ceased  to  work,  but  they  held  that  otdy 
the  Messiah  would  be  entitled  to  add  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment canon. 

(6.)  Why  did  the  church  need  other  Scriptures  thaji 
those  already  existing,  and  how  was  it  brought  to  rec- 
ognize those  writings  which  became  the  New  Testament 
canon  ? 

(1.)  If  the  question  be  what  want  there  was  of  any 
other  Scriptures  than  those  already  received,  the  an- 
swer wouidd)e,  that  whenever  the  fulfillment  of  the  Old 
Testament  predictions  should  come,  and  God  should  re- 
sume special  and  fresh  communications  with  men,  the 
church  and  the  world  would  want  the  proof  and  the  full 
benefit  of  these  communications.  If  the  fulfillment  had 
now  come  in  Christ,  as  he  himself  claimed,  and  as  the 
apostles  and  the   early  church  believed,  the  church  and 


74 

the  world  wanted  argumentative  and  practical  evidence 
of  it.  The  argumentative  evidence  must  be  derived  from 
the  Scripturesof  the  Old  Testament;  the  practical  proof 
could  only  be  given  in  the  life  of  Christ.  He  must  show 
himself  to  be  one  opening  communication  with  God. 
It  is  thus  that  Christ  argues  from  the  Scriptures  to  him- 
self, and  from  himself  to  the  Scriptures.  He  gives  first, 
to  personal  hearers  and  eve  witnesses  sufficient  evidence 
of  his  divine  mission.  But  some  sufficient  evidence  is 
needed  for  others,  who  could  not  be  personal  hearers  and 
eye  witnesses.  This  evidence  must  be  definite  and  re- 
liable, which  oral  traditions  could  not  be.  It  is  thus 
that  the  definite,  well  attested  body  of  documents  was 
formed. 

(2.)  If  the  question  be  how  the  authentic  words  of 
Christ  Himself  first  as  orally  transmitted,  and  then  as 
fixed  in  writing,  gained  a  like  authority  with  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament,  the  answer  must  be,  that 
these  men  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  was  their  prom- 
ised Messiah.  Confirmation  of  this  faith,  and  the  means 
of  spreading  it  were  needful.  (Heb.  1  :  1.)  If  God  had 
spoken  in  these  later  times  by  His  Son,  there  is  no 
question  but  that  the  words  of  the  new  communica- 
tion are  of  equal  authority  with  those  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

(3.)  If  the  question  be,  howthew^ord  of  the  Apostles 
as  distinguished  from  that  of  Christ  Himself,  could  ever 
have  been  put  on  equal  authority  with  that  of  the  Lord, 
the  answer  is.  that  the  apostolic  words  must  have  been 
regarded  as  authorized  by  the  Lord,  and  in  some  ade- 
quate way  exalted  to  a  divine  dignity-  and  authority. 
This  end  would  be  attained,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  promised 
and  sent  by  Christ,' prompted  and  guided  the  Apostles. 
Hence  we  find  the  church  recognized  tlie  fulfillment  of 
the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  these  utterances. 

Christ  left  no  written  word  Himself.  If  we  find  that 
the  church  regarded  the  words  of  the  Apostles  and  apos- 
tolic men,  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  Old  Testament, 
then  they  regarded  them  as  virtually  the  word  of 
Christ. 

(4.)  If  the  question  be,  what  practical  necessities 
would  have   called  forth  the  canon,  and  have  been   met 


75 

by  it's  early  formation,  may  be  answered  in  two  ways; 
iirst,  the  habit  of  readinsj  what  was  recoj^nized  as  Scripture 
in  public  assemblies  for  instruction  and  edification  would 
explain  it  in  part;  and  second,  the  need  of  an  authorita- 
tive standard  of  appeal  in  controversy  with  heretics.  To 
appeal  to  the  Apostles  as  expressing  the  mind  of  the 
Lord,  would  be  the  highest  authority.  The  recognition 
of  this  fact  by  heretics  is  also  valuable,  as  showing  the 
estimation  in  which  the  Scriptures  were  held.  It  is  a 
noticeable  fact  that  the  oldest  i-eferencp  vve  have  to  the 
Scriptures,  is  made  in  the  writings  of  a  heretic  (Basili- 
des,  A.  D.  130.)  Vide.  Westcott  on'the  canon,  p.  288. 

4.  Composition  if  the  canon.  The  completion  of  the 
canon  was  gradual,  both  for  physical  and  moral  reasons. 
It  was  necessarily  a  work  of  time.  Some  of  tiie  docu- 
ments were  originally  specific;  limited  and  local  in  their 
immediate  aim.  There  was  no  reason  why  they  should 
come  to  the  notice  of  remoter  portions  of  the  church. 
They  were  writings  of  divers  kinds,  narrative,  epistolary, 
prophetic  ;  among  the  letters  there  were  some  addressed 
to  single  churches,  others  to  individuals,  and  others  to 
dispersed  believers.  On  tlie  assumption  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  these  docutnents  they  had  all  been  composed 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century.  The  apostolic  fathers 
make  clear  reference  to  all  the  Gospels  and  at  least  to 
twelve  of  the  Epistles.  Within  the  next  half  century 
(120-170)  Oie  Greek  Apologists  mention  every  volume  in 
the  present  canon,  and  use  them  with  abundant  attesta- 
tion and  recognition  of  their  authority.  The  early  ver- 
sions, belonging  to  the  same  period  give  us  nearly  the 
same  result.  The  Peshitd  contains  twenty-two  of  the 
twenty-seven.  It  omits  2nd  and  3rd  John,  2nd  Peter, 
Jude  and  the  Revelation.  The  old  Latin  version  lacks 
2nd  Peter  and  James.  The  heretics  of  the  same  period 
make  reference  to  these  books.  Before  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  we  find  twenty  books  were 
attested,  six  recognized  in  a  more  limited  way,  and  only 
one,  as  yet  not  recognized  (2  Peter.) 

The  formation  of  the  canon  was  one  of  the  first  in- 
stincts of  the  Christian  Society.  The  collection  was  at 
first  imperfect,  as  the  church  was  imperfect,  but  as  the 
church  attained  a  fuller  growth,  the  canon  was  more  and 


76 

I 

more  clearly  defined  and  recognized,  and  hy  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century  we  find  it  established  as  it  now  exists. 
As  for  the  books  which  for  a  tinrie  received  only  a  par- 
tial and  local  recognition,  it  can  be  proven  that  they 
were  known  from  the  very  first,  although  not  universally 
known.  Their  limited  circulation  is  easily  explained. 
As  they  became  more  and  more  widely  known,  they 
became  more  generally  received.  The  attitude  of  the 
church  towards  them  was  from  principle,  that  of  caution 
on  account  of  heresies  within  and  enemies  without;  so. 
that  those  books  which  failed  to  gain  acceptance  at  the. 
end  of  the  second  century,  were  recognized  or  had  to 
make  their  way  into  the  canon  more  slowly,  but  by  the 
end  of  the  fourth  the  canon  was  complete. 

Objections  to  the  composition  of  the.  Canon.  Dr.  Donald- 
son says  that  not  a  few  of  tlie  books  were  not  fully  re- 
ceived by  the  early  church,  because  they  were  regarded 
as  difieringin  value.  An  unscrupulous  age  broke  down 
the  discrimination  and  included  them  all.  The  third 
century  he  characterizes  as  discriminate;  the  fourth  as 
indiscriminate.  He  advises  the  church  to  follow  the 
third  century.  In  answer,  notice;  (a)  The  methods  of 
the  early  church  were  not  those  of  the  critical  schools. 
(b)  The  spirit  of  the  early  church  was  not  that  of  the 
critical  schools.  Tliere  was  much  more  moral  earnest- 
ness in  it,  and  no  such  unreasonable  demands,  as  Strauss 
and  other  critics  make,  in  demanding  testimony  of  eye- 
witnesses. No  such  ostentatious  presumptions  were 
made,  as  are  made  by  those  who  refuse  to  apply  the 
historical  method  to  books  containing  the  records  of 
miracles,  (c)  The  acceptance  in  the  fourth  century  of 
the  writings  which  at  first  had  secured  only  partial  or 
local  recognition  admits  of  easy  explanation.  All  the 
objections  to  the  canon,  and  those  to  the  Epistles  es- 
pecially involve  misunderstanding,  or  misrepresentation 
of  the  condition  and  character  of  the  early  church. 

The  authenticity  of  the  IS  ew  Testament  Scriptures. 

The  main  inquiry  in  regard  to  this  subject  belongs  to 
New  Testament  Introduction.  Apologetics  recalls  the 
principles  and  methods  by  which  it  is  determined  that 
these  documents  can  be  confidently  ascribed  to  the  authors, 
whose  names  they  bear. 


■77 

1.  At  the  etui  of  the  second  century  there  were  in  the 
possession  of  the  early  church  documents  confessedly  of 
very  high  sacredness.  lionored  as  of  actual  or  virtual 
apostolic  authoi'ship,  bearing  the  names  of  our  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  corresponding  with  them  in 
description.  There  are  two  points  to  be  established  ;  (1.) 
The  identity  of  the  books  in  our  Scriptures  with  those 
of  the  fourth  century  ;  (2.)  the  evidence  of  the  authenticity 
of  those. 

2.  The  general  identity  of  our  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  with  those  of  the  early  church,  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  examination  of  the  early  manuscripts,  the 
early  versions,  and  all  the  definite  citations  by  early 
writers. 

3.  Our  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
early  Scriptures,  reducesitself  to  this  ;  tirst,  in  what  sense- 
and  second,  with  what  reason  the  church  of  the  second 
century  accredited  these  books  to  theauthors  whose  names 
they  bear.  Was  it  a  mere  convenient  and  conventional 
way  of  designating  them,  or  did  it  impl}-  a  conviction 
that  the  assumption  was  correct?  Strauss  says,  that 
the  early  writers  published  their  works  under  the 
name  of  some  popular  person,  without  intending  any 
harm,  or  deceit.  Bleek  says,  it  was  u  lawful  thing  to 
do;  it  was  understood  on  all  hands,  and  we  find  that 
these  books  which  the  church  repudiated  belonged  to 
this  class  of  writings.  Rawlinson  (sixth  Lecture)  saya 
that  there  is  no  proof  for  such  assertions.  In  thatperiod 
the  writers  received  no  encouragement  in  covering  their 
individuality  under  great  names.  The  church  rejected  a 
great  number  of  pseudepigraphic  writings.  It  rejected 
thirty-eight  such  gospels,  thirteen  books  of  Acts,  nine 
Revelations,  ten  Epistles.  Out  of  the  whole  number  of 
books  claiming  recognition,  it  rejected  at  least  sevent}', 
accepted  twenty-seven.  The  alternative  is,  that  these 
writings  which  were  received  were  authentic,  or  that 
they  were  forgeries,  perpetrated  successfully  within  an 
Hundred  years  of  the  apostolic  period.  That  the  docu- 
ments were  regarded  as  authentic  appears  from  the  fact 
that  the  J  were  used  by  early  Christian  writers,  early 
heretics,  pagan  antagonists  of  Christianity,  and  that 
they  are  embodied  in  early  versions. 


78 

Considerations  confirming  the  judgment  of  the  church  of 
the  second  century  in  regard  to  these  documents. 

As  a  preliminary  consideration  in  this  connection 
notice,  that  seventeen  of  the  twenty-seven  books  of  the 
New  Testaraent  contain  the  name  of  their  author,  in  the 
substance  of  the  writing,  not  merely  in  a  title  prefixed  or  in 
an  appendage.  Thus  the  best  opportunity  for  tracing 
and  verifying  their  authenticity  is  furnished.  So  far  as 
the  title  is  concerned,  the  ascription  of  it  to  a  certain 
authorship  expresses  the  judgment  of  the  early  church 
founded  on  tradition  or  internal  evidence,  or  both.  Strauss 
says,  that  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  these  titles, 
Rawlinson  answers,  that  the  church  could  not  have  pre- 
iixed  them  unless  the  belief  had  previously  existed. 

Ji.  It  was  not  merely  a  literary  satisfaction  to  the 
church,  but  a  vital  necessity,  for  its  own  faith,  and  for 
its  propagation,  that  it  should  possess  and  be  able  to 
convey  to  others  the  assurance,  that  the  essential  facts 
and  doctrines  of  Christianity  were  faithfully  recorded. 
This  follows  from  the  historical  nature  of  Christianity. 

B.  These  documents  were  very  early  transcribed, 
interchanged  among  the  churches,  sometimes  by  apos- 
tolic authority;  (Colos.  4:  16;)  they  were  accummu- 
lated  by  individual  churches,  publicly  read  in  worship 
as  Scripture.  The  eye  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians 
was  upon  them.'  The  interest  of  the  whole  Christian 
society  was  enlisted  in  the  question  of  their  acceptance 
or  rejection.  It  was  not  the  trained  intelligence  of  the 
few,  but  the  practical  intelligence  of  the  man\',  which 
was  brought  to  exercise  and  judge  them. 

C.  Different  sections  of  the  church  which  after  Jeru- 
salem had  perished,  recognized  no  superior  body,  but 
followed  out  their  own  distinct  sources  of  information, 
agree  in  the  result  oi'  their  investigations.  Ewald  sa3'S, 
"  it  cannot  be  said,  that  any  one  part  of  the  church  led 
the  way  in  accepting  these  new  writings.  It  was  a  simul- 
taneous movement  of  the  whole  church, 

D.  As  a  literary  phenomenon  the  produatioti  and 
introduction  into  the  Christian  church  of  such  forgeries, 
is  highly  unnatural  and  improbable.  It  needs  a  greater 
credibility  to  believe  that  the  church,  passing  through 
fiery  persecution    could   produce,  and    be  occupied  with 


79 

such  books.  It  cannot  be  believed  that  at  that  time  men 
could  be  found,  who  could  produce  such  accurate  pro- 
ductions, wonderful  in  whiit  they  saj  and  what  they  omit, 
and  in  their  delicate  agreement  of  hook  with  book. 

E.  Add  to  this  the  moral  improbability  that  any  one 
could  attempt  to  pass  off,  as  the  productions  of  an  apostle 
or  of  an  apostolic  author,  such  forgeries,  and  succeed 
when  confronted  with  the  moral  purity  and  truth  of  the 
Christian  system.  That  he  could  make  this  purity  his 
own,  and  yet  pass  off  the  counterfeit.  i\o  secular  scheme, 
no  ecclesiastical  or  religious  results  justify  the  use  of 
such  means  to  secure  such  ends.  That  a  man  could  carry 
through  sucii  a  -work  as  th's,  working  against  such 
motives  and  risks,  without  exciting  suspicion,  can  be  be- 
lieved only  by  the  credulous  skeptics. 

F.  These  considerations  are  corroborated  and  strength- 
ened by  important  negative  evidence.  The  writings  be- 
fore us,  when  their  exposure  would  have  been  easy,  ex- 
cited great  attention,  created  great  interest,  made  great 
demands,  aroused  great  hatred,  and  were  generally  ac- 
cepted. We  have  even  from  those  who  refuse  to  accept 
the  religion  which  they  taught,  the  concession  of  their 
authenticity.  This  is  evidence  more  ample  and  varied 
than  can  be  cited  for  any  other  historical  documents. 
B.  H.  Cowper,  {Popular  Lectures  on  Christian  Evidence) 
thus  presents  the  negative  proof  in  favor  of  these  docu- 
ments. 

(1.)  No  historians  can  be  found  who  wrote  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  who  do  not  mention  Him  if  they  might 
be  reasonably  expected  to  do  so. 

(2.)  No  Greek  or  Roman  autho'r  within  three  centu- 
ries after  the  promulgation  of  Christianity  denies  the 
authenticity  of  the  gospels. 

(3.)  No  Jewish  writer  of  the  same  period,  denies  the 
authenticity  of  the  gospels. 

(4.)  Neither  Jewish,  nor  Gentile  writers  of  the  same 
period  deny  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

(5.)  The  earliest  heretics  did  not  deny  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  gospels. 

(6.)  No  one  of  these  authors  mentions  the  four  gos- 
pels as  first  received  iti  his  own  time. 

(7.)  No  ancient  author  says  that  the  orthodox  Chris- 
tians received  more  or  fewer  than  four  gospels. 


80 

(8.)  Our  four  gospels  were  translated  out  of  the  Greek 
into  other  languages,  before  150  A.  D, 

(9.)  If  these  writings  were  not  autlientic,  why  did  no 
one  discover  or  expose  the  forgery,  when  they  lirst  ap- 
peared ? 

(10.)  Why  did  not  the  enemies  of  Christianity  at- 
tempt to  disprove  their  authenticity,  if  it  was  floubted  ? 

(11.)  Myriads  of  enemies  were  converted  to  the  faith 
of  the  govspels  at  an  early  day. 

(12.)  Multitudes  of  Christians  suffered  death,  rather 
than  deny  the  truth  of  the  gospels. 

The  Integrity  of  thk  Canonical  writings  of  the  New 
TesTx\ment. 

Are  our  gospels.  Acts,  Epistles,  Apacalypse,  the 
works  described  l)\'  corresponding  names  in  the  lists 
which  were  in  circulation  in  the  early  church.  This 
problem  can  be  investigated  in  two  ways. 

1.  There  are  external  means  of  determining  the  cor- 
res}iondence  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  early  church,  with 
our  own.  These  are  the  oldest  manuscripts  ;  the  early 
versions,  and  the  oldest  citations. 

[a.)  The  Oldest  Manuscripts  ;  the  date  of  these  cannot 
be  accurately  determined,  but  some  of  them  are  cer- 
tainly as  old  as  the  fourth  century;  {b.)  the  old  versions 
are  the  Peshito,the  Latin,  and  the  Gothic,  But  the  old- 
est manuscripts  of  these  versions  are  of  the  fourth,  fifth 
and  sixth  centuries;  (c.)  the  citations  are  \)ot  \u  original 
documents  but  in  transcripts.  Combining  the  result  of 
these  texts  we  reach  the  approximate  correct  text. 

2.  There  are  internal  means  of  determining  this  cor- 
respondence of  the  Scriptures  of  the  early  church  with 
our  own.  These  are  very  often  abused,  but  they  should 
certainly  not  be  i-ejected  on  that  account.     They  are, 

(a.)  The  internal  fitness  of  a  document,  or  any  part 
of  it,  to  the  source  to  which  it  is  ascribed,  and  the  pro- 
fessed objects  of  its  author. 

(6.)  The  harmony  of  subject  and  style,  discoverable 
within  the  document,  or  existing  between  it  and  other 
writings  credibly  ascribed  to  the  same  author. 

(<?.)  The  presence  or  absence  of  connecting  links  be- 
tween the  parts  admitted  to  be  authentic,  and   the  parts 


81 

said  to  be  doubtful.  The  result  of  the  application  of  ex- 
ternal tests,  leaves  very  few  passages  doubtful,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  these  internal  tests  be  applied. 

Credibility   of    the   New    Testament   Scriptures. 

What  reason  have  we  for  believing  what  the  New 
Testament  writers  say,  as  true?  And  under  what  limi- 
tations shall  we  receive  them  as  such  ? 

Tliere  are  two  preliminary  considerations  in  regard  to 
thTs  subject. 

(1.)  That  the  lapse  of  time,  as  such,  has  nothing 
to  do,  with  the  conclusiveness  of  moral  evidencee. 
That  which  justifies  belief  at  one  time,  does  so  a  thousand 
years  later.  Testimony  once  good  is  forever  good  ;  time 
does  not  touch  the  intrinsic  value  of  our  warrant  for 
belief 

(2).  The  credibility  which  we  are  considering  includes 
largely  the  element  of  personal  confidence.  The  attempt 
is  often  made  to  put  this  proof  on  scientific  grounds. 
This  is  unjust.  We  are  not'  estimating  the  preponder- 
ance of  pi'obabilities.  The  early  church  especially  re- 
ceived these  evidences  as  a  ground  of  personal  trust,  not 
merely  of  opinion.  We  also  should  resist  the  attempt 
of  modern  science  to  eliminate  this  element. 

The  proofs  of  credibility  are  grouped  under  two 
heads ;  as 

(1).  Attested  and  (2)  Presumptive. 

(1).  The  Attested  Proofs. — In  many  particulars  the 
credibility  of  the  New  Testatnent,  is  what  may  be  called 
an  attested  credibility.  There  are  many  confirmations 
from  without. 

(a)  Many  things  asserted  by  the  New  Testament 
writers  are  demonstrable  by  reason.  Such  are  the 
truths  of  natural  religion  ;  the  existence  of  God,  etc. 
All  the  new  facts  brought  to  knowledge  are  congruous 
with  those  which  we  already  have  from  natural  religion. 

(h).  The  credibility,  or  truthfulness  of  the  central  and 
essential  facts  of  tlie  New  Testament,  is  confirmed  by 
the  results  which  follow  their  hearty  reception  as  true. 
Truth  believed  works  certain  results,  which  error  believ- 
ed cannot  work.  Therefore  the  results  of  the  reception 
of  the  New  Testament  facts,  are  an  important  corrobor- 
ation of  their  credibility. 


82 

(c.)  Many  of  the  statements  of  the  New  Testanient 
writers,  are  corroborated  h}'  independent,  external  testi- 
monies, and  even  from  foreiofn  and  historical  quarters. 
The  concurrence  of  independent  and  various  sources  of 
testimony,  strengthens  credibility.  All  the  testimony  of 
the  Jewish  writers  where  they  speak  of  the  same  things, 
invariably  harmonizes  with  that  of  the  New  Testament 
writings.  Chalmers  urges  the  pertinence  of  using  the 
testimony  of  one  book  to  confirm  that  of  another.  He 
denies  the  propriety  of  rejecting  the  testimony  of  a  be- 
liever because  he  is  such.  It  is  not  necessary  that  one 
should  be  a  heathen  in  order  to  be  believed.  The  New 
Testament  contains  twenty-seven  books  from  at  least 
eight  authors,  who  wrote  independently,  and  hence  their 
agreement  is  a  proof  of  their  truthfulness. 

(d.)  The  most  effective  attestation  to  the  credibility 
of  the  New  Testament,  at  least  in  its  historical  parts,  is 
found  in  the  fact,  that  these  things  were  known,  and  be- 
lieved by  large  numbers  of  men,  and  the  only  natural 
explanation  is  that  they  had  fully  satisfied  themselves  of 
the  truth  of  what  they  believed. 

2.  The  Presumjytive  Proofs.  The  credibility  of  the 
New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  great  body  of  its  his- 
torical facts  is  presumptive.  When  no  external  corrob- 
oration can  be  found,  an  assurance  is  found,  by  internal 
or  implicit  signs,  of  the  credibility  of  statements. 

A.  This  is  illustrated  by  considerations  drawn  from 
the  nature  of  the  facts  to  which  the  record  relates. 

(1.)  These  facts  were  to  a  large  extent  accessible  to 
the  scrutiny  of  others,  as  well  as  the  narrators.  Against 
this  it  is  objected,  (a)  that  some  of  the  most  important 
facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  were  witnessed  by  only  three 
persons ;  {h)  that  the  fact  of  Christ's  repeated  reap- 
pearance after  his  resurrection,  is  attested  only  by  his 
disciples.  To  this  it  is  answered  ;  that  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  believe,  that  if  the  witnesses  were  others  more  or 
fewer,  their  testimony  would  be  w^orth  more. 

(2.)  These  facts  are  numerous  and  by  their  number 
give  an  opportunity  for  denial  or  disproof,  if  not  true. 

(3.)  These  facts  are  mii]utely  described,  and  by  their 
minuteness  confirm  the  belief  that  they  are  narrated  by 
eye-witnesses. 


83 

(4.)  These  facts  are  of  such  a  nature,  as  to  make  the 
most  imperative  demands  for  the  most  searching  scrutiny. 
The\' are  not  matters  of  indifference ;  on  tlie  contrary 
they  take  hohl  on  the  deepest  instincts  and  influence  a 
whole  life. 

B.  This  presumptive  credihility  is  further  confirmed 
hy  considerations  drawn  from  the  character  and  circum- 
stances of  the  witnesses.  There  pre  three  elements  to 
be  regarded  l)y  all  witnesses:  opportunity  for  knowing, 
competence  forjudging,  and  character.  When  we  lack 
the  testimony  of  original  witnesses,  we  must  thoroughlv 
test  the  substitutes,  and  in<|uire  as  to  what  access  thev 
had  to  ej'e-witnesses  or  documents.  On  the  supposition 
that  we  could  establish  no  more  than  the  fact  that  these 
books  came  from  apostolic  times  and  men,  we  have, 

(1.)  The  testimony  of  witnesses,  numerous  and  di- 
verse, wlio  ai-e  not  in  their  writings  making  the  first 
announcement  to  the  church  of  the  facts  therein  re- 
corded ;  tljey  are  narrating  what  had  been  accepted  for 
a  generation  or  more,  and  widely  believed.  They  are 
writing  to  churches  composed  of  members  who  liad  been 
eye-witnesses,  not  in  order  to  create  belief,  but  in  order 
to  inform  those  already  believing;  to  increase  and  per- 
petuate the  definiteness  of  their  belief.  They  therefore 
run  the  risk,  and  challenge  the  denial  of  thousands  who 
had  been  either  eye-witnesses,  or  otherwise  believers. 

(2.)  The  testimony  of  men  who  are  in  spirit  appar- 
ently as  far  removed  as  possible  from  deceit,  who  taking 
all  things  into  consideration  are  incapable  of  such  fabri- 
cations, and  intellectually  and  morally,  without  any 
motive  or  opportunit\'  to  use  such  a  capacity  if  they  had 
had  it.  "  .  "  . 

(3.)  The  testimony  of  men  who  held  to  the  moat 
simple  and  truthful  recording  of  what  they  believed,  by 
ever}'  consideration  drawn  from  regard  to  self,  regard  to 
their  mafter,  and  regard  for  his  cause.  There  is  no 
cause  whatever,  so  far  as  can  be  discovered,  why  they 
should  further  such  a  pure,  noble  cause,  by  means  of  a 
fabrication.  A  historical  falsehood  so  easily  detected  a.^ 
this  would  De,  would  suffice  for  the  condemnation  of 
such  a  cause, 

C.  The  presumptive  credibility  of  the  narrative  in 
its    minor    parts,    is    immensely    strengthened,    by    the 


84 

consideration  of  the  utter  impossibility  that  the   central 
figure  can  be  an  invention. 

The  nature,  the  character  and  the  life  of  Christ, 
could  not  have  been  fabricated.  They  are  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  imagination.  The  minor  facts  are  grouped 
about  this  central  figure  in  a  harmonious  way.  The 
style  also  is  the  style  of  truth  ;  the  power  is  the  power 
of  truth. 

Attention  has  been  called  of  late  in  an  especial 
manner  to  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  Compare 
Bnshnell,  "-Character  of  Jesus;''  Albert  Barnes,  VIII 
''Lectures  on  Christ;"  Philip  Schaft'  on  "  The  Person  of 
Christ." 

It  is  objected  that  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  have  the 
same  central  figure,  and  skeptics  ask  why  it  does  not 
prove  them  to  be  credible. 

Westcott  on  the  canon  (appendix  C.)  shows  wherein 
the  character  of  Jesus  in  the  Apocrypha  differs  from 
the  character  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels.  In  the  Gospels 
Christ  is  brought  out  in  strong  coiitrast  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  Jews.  In  the  Apocrypha  He  is  nearer 
to  the  Jewish  expectation.  He  is,  in  a  looser  sense,  a 
human  Christ. 

D.  Another  confirmation  of  the  presumptive  credi- 
bility is  found  in  the  coexistence  of  a  general  and 
strong  harmony  of  representation,  with  clear  signs  of 
individualit}'  and  inde[tendence  in  the  collection  and  use 
of  material.  In  all  historical  accounts  discrepancies  in 
detail  within  certain  bounds,  increase  the  presumption 
of  general  correctness  by  showing  that  we  have  inde- 
pendent witnesses.  If  our  Gospels  were  transcripts  of 
one  original  document,  they  would  not  have  varying  ac- 
counts of  some  things.  As  for  oral  testimony,  without 
a  miracle,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  they  should  have 
the  same  details.  In  regard  to  disagreements  in  detail 
there  should  be  on  our  part:  (a)  candor,  in  admitting 
what  difterence  may  exist ;  (6)  honesty  in  locating  and 
defining  such  difference,  and  (c)  on  the  other  hand, 
equal  candor  in  allowing  full  weight  to  the  historical 
evidence.  The  scantiness  of  material  should  warn  us 
against  assuming  that  all  possible  solutious  have  pre- 
sented  themselves,  and  that  if  they  fail  the  difficulty  is. 


insurmountable.  Wlien  some  difficnlty  caniior  he  ex- 
plained, let  it  remain  as  a  mystery,  and  set  over  against 
it  tlie  accumulation  of  evidence  for  credibility. 

E.  The  presumptive  historical  credibility  is  increased 
by  the  miraculous  element  in  the  New  Testament 
History. 

This  narrative  does  not  purport  to  be  a  common 
secular  history.  It  is  extraordinary  in  its  character ;  it 
is  not  an  account  of  transactions  bet\veo!i  man  and  man, 
but  between  God  and  man.  It  is  an  account  of  the 
oiigin  of  wliat  claims  to  be  a  new  final  religion.  So 
far  therefore  from  counting  n)iracles  a  difficulty  in  the 
historical  narrative,  (e.  g.  Zeller,  Renan,  Strauss,  Baur, 
etc.)  we  should  regard  the  absence  of  signs  and  nnracles 
as  strange  and  remarkable.  They  are  tlie  worthy  ac- 
companiment of  such  a  narrative.  If  there  is  to  be  a 
communication  of  God  to  man,  itshould  be  accompanied 
by  wonderful  events. 

E.  All  these  considerations  in  regard  to  the  credi- 
bility of  the  New  Testament  narrative  are  advanced  to 
the  highest  signification  and  conclusiveness,  bv  the  evi- 
dence that  these  writers  did  not  make  their  record 
merely  as  human  witnesses  and  narrators,  but  under  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  argument  is  the 
climactic  one  because  the  veracity  of  the  authors 
of  these  documents  must  be  first  established  in  order 
that  their  claim  of  inspiration  may  be  acknowledged 
and  its  force  in  this  connection  be  admitted. 

ir.  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURES. 

Why  should  we  want  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
as  witnesses  in  favor  of  Christianity  ?  This  is  a  ques- 
tion naturally  asked  in  beginning  the  examination  of 
the  Old  Testament  canon.  We  may  in  answer  say;  the 
New  Testament  dispensation  is  not  the  first,  divinely 
accredited  dispensation.  It  announces  itself  as  a  suc- 
cessor, a  later  and  a  final  system  in  a  series  of  true, 
divinely  sanctioned  and  authoritative  religions.  As 
such  it  may  be  regarded  in  a  two-fold  aspect.  (1.)  A 
revelation  of  God  to  men  by  which  He  makes  Himself 
known.  (2.)  For  the  purpose  of  guiding,  aiding  atid 
unfolding    a    religious    life.     For    i»    knowledge   of    the 


«6 

stages  which  preceded  it,  Christianity  refers  us  to  the 
Old  Testament.  For  the  mere  purpose  of  historical 
knowledge  then,  we  must  resort  to  the  earlier  canon. 
Moreover,  Christianity  claims  to  be  consistent  with  these 
antecedent  stages  of  revelation  ;  we  need  to  examine 
them  in  order  to  verify  its  claim. 

(a.)  Christianity  needs  the  Old  Testament  in  order 
to  understand  what-  Gotl  has  done  and  said  to  its  ante- 
cedents. 

(6.)  It  represents  them  in  a  course  as  provisional 
and  preparatory.  It  differs  from  them  in  containing 
some  things  which  they  lack.  It  claims  to  be  so  com- 
plete as  to  supersede  them. 

(c-.)  The  I'cception  and  usage  of  these  Scriptures  is 
commended  by  the  language  of  Christ,  the  Apostles  and 
the  early  chui-ch.  These  make  tliem  to  us  what  they 
were  to  the  earlv  church. 

THE    CANON  OF  THE  OLD    TESTAMENT. 

The  question  is  what  was  the  canon  to  which  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  gave  their  sanction.  Not  how  it  grew, 
but  what  in  the  day  of  Christ,  to  the  Jews  constituted 
the  rule  of  faith,  or  the  oracles  of  God.  The  phrase 
"  Scripture  "  occurs  about  thirty  times  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament;  tlie  plural  "  Scriptures  *' occurs  about  twenty 
times  ;  the  phrase  "  Sacred  Scriptures  "  once  or  twice  ; 
the  "Law"  (not  in  the  sense  of  the  law  of  Moses)  three 
times  ;  the  "  Law  and  Prophets  "  once  ;  the  "  Law  and 
Prophets  and  Psalms,"  once.  What  is  meant  by  these 
expressions?  A  few  generations  before  Christ  the  ques- 
tion might  have  been  debatable,  but  even  sceptics  admit 
that  the  references  in  Matthew  23  :  35  and  Luke  11  :  57 
are  to  the  whole  canon,  from  Genesis  to  2  Chronicles. 
Not  every  book  is  either  quoted  or  referred  to,  from  the 
Old  Testament.  The  books  of  Judges,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Solomon,  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  are  not 
mentioned.  Some  would  include  in  this  list  Obadiah  and 
Nahum;  the  Apocryphal  book  Ecclesiaticus  mentions 
three  groups  of  books,  and  discriminates  between  them, 
viz.,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa,  and 
makes  a  distinction  between  them  and  all  other  books. 
Josephus  makes  the  same  division;   mentions  the  num- 


87 

her  of  books  a8  twenty-two  (the  number  of  letters  in  the 
Hebrew  Alphabet.)  He  sayj,  "it  is  inbred  in  the  Jews 
to  esteem  these  booics  as  0eia  jloyiw.za  i.  e.  divinely 
sanctioned  doctrines,  and  to  abide  by  them,  and  die  for 
them  if  need  be.  The  Septnagint  contains  books  not 
found  in  our  canon.  In  some  parts  of  the  church  Deu- 
tero-canonical  authority  is  assigned  to  them.  According 
tg  some  modern  writers,  there  is  only  a  chronological 
discrimination  made  between  these  books  and  our  caHon. 
(DeWeett,  Fiirst.)  Ecclesiastes  12:11  indicates  a 
large  and  wearisome  literary  productiveness,  and  it  can 
iiardly  be  supposed  that  most  of  this  literature  perished 
between  the  composition  of  Ecclesiastes  and  the  time  of 
Christ,  especially  if  Ecclesiastes  is  as  late  as  these  critics 
claim.  In  2  Maccabees  2:4  reference  is  made  to  the 
work  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  Nehemiah  in  forming  a 
library.  It  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose  this  comprised 
a  number  of  volumes  of  the  existing  literature. 

The  canonical  collection  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  is  composed  of  the  Law, in  five  (5)  books  ;  the 
Prophets,  including  the  historical  books  written  by  the 
prophetic  school,  twenty-one  (21) ;  and  the  Ilagiogra- 
pha  in  thirteen  (13)  books.  In  regard  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon,  there  are  two  views  opposed  to  the  common 
evangelical  view  : 

(1.)  The  looser  Protestant  view,  and 

(2.)  The  Catholic  view. 

The  first  of  these  views  is  held  by  those  who  aim  to 
depreciate  the  canonical  books,  and  exalt  some  of  those 
we  call  Apocryphal.  They  hold  it  impossible  to  make 
a  solid  and  binding  discrimination  between  the  books 
which  are,  and  which  are  not  canonical.  So  far  as  the 
argument  for  this  view  is  historical  it  is  based,  (a)  on  the 
Septuagint  version  ;  (/>)  on  the  dift'erence  between  the 
Palestinian  and  Alexandrian  canon  ;  {c)  on  the  early 
Greek  and  Latin  Fathers;  [d)  o\\  the  modern  church 
divergences  on  the  subject. 

The  Catholic    view    includes   the  Apocrypha    in    its 

"canon.     This  is  embodied  in  the  decision  of  the  Council 

of  Trent.     After  enumerating  the  books  as  contained  in 

the  Vulgate,  the  decree   reads,  "  but  if  any  one  refuses 

to  receive  the  whole  of  these  books,  with  every  part  of 


them,  as  they  are  rear!  in  the  Catholic  church,  and  con- 
tained in  the  ancient  edition  of  the  Vulgate  Latin,  as 
sacred  and  canonical,  or  knowinglj'  atid  deliberately  de- 
spises the  traditions  before  mentioned,  let  him  be  anath- 
ema." {Vide  Townley's  Biblical  Literature,  vol.  IL, 
p.  156.)  The  Westminster  view  is,  "  Tiie  Books  com- 
monly called  the  Apocrypha,  not  being  of  divine  inspi- 
ration, are  no  [)art  of  the  canon  of  the  Scripture  ;  and 
therefore  are  of  no  authority  in  the  church  of  God,  nor 
to  be  any  otherwise  approved,  or  made  use  of,  than 
other  human  writings."  (The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  ;   chap.  I.,  sc^'.  3.) 

Arguments  for  the  Looser  View. — (1.)  Not  all  the  can- 
onical books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  quoted  or  clearly 
alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament.     In  answer  we  say: 

[a.)  There  was  no  occasion  to  quote  ur  use  them. 
There  need  be  no  other  explanation  than  this. 

(h.)  The  absence  of  quotation  by  no  means  proves 
the  absence  of  the  books  from  the  collection. 

(2.)  We  do  find  in  the  New  Testament  express  cita- 
tions from  Jewish  literature,  not  comprised  in  our 
present  canon,  and  quotations  made  by  the  use  of  the 
same  formulas.  Instances  of  such  quotations  are  the 
following:  Jude  9-14;  Jam.es  4:5;  1  Cor.  2:9;  Luke 
11:49;  Jno.  7  :  38.  All  these  with  on  »  exception  are 
from  Apocryphal  books,  which  cannot  be  identified. 
Jude  9  is  supposed  to  bo  from  a  book  of  the  "  Assump- 
tion of  Moses."  James  4  :  5  is  from  some  lost  book  ;  so 
the  quotations  in  1  Cor.,  Luke  and  John,  are  supposed 
to  be  from  lost  Apocryphal  books.  In  fact  if  closely 
compared  these  passages  are  seen  to  be  free  citations  of 
the  substance  of  some  passage  found  in  some  canonical 
book.  Whether  Jude  14  is  from  Enoch,  or  vice  versa,  is 
not  known.  Eph.  5  :  14  and  4  :  8  are  also  referred  to  in 
this  argument. 

(3.)  That  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  Apocryphal 
books,  we  do  find  in  the  New  Testament  undoubted  ref- 
erence to  their  contents  and  clear  traces  of  their  in- 
fluence, on  the  style  of  representation  and  language, 
1  Peter  1:6-7  is  an  undoubted  reference  to  Wisdom  3: 
5,  6,  7;  James  1 :  9  is  a  reference  to  Ecclesiasticus  5  :  11  ; 
4  :  29  ;    Hebrews   4  :  12-13  is  a  reference  to  Wisdom  7  : 


89 

22-24;  Romans  1:20-22  is  a  condensed  reproduction 
of  chaps.  13,  14,  15  of  Wisdom.  Such  is  the  chiim  of 
this  chiss  of  thinkers. 

These  on  examination  are  found  to  be  unsubstan- 
tiated. All  that  requires  explanation  is  explained  by 
the  admitted  general  use  of  the  Septuagint  and  its  in- 
fluence on  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  That  the 
New  Testament  writers  were  familiar  with  the  Septua- 
gint is  not  to  be  denied.  Of  the  three  hundred  and 
fifty  (350)  quotations,  three  hundred  (300)  are  traced  to 
the  Septuagint,  rather  than  to  the  Hebrew  text.  But  so 
long  as  not  one  instance  of  clear  citation  from  the  Apoc- 
rypha can  be  adduced,  there  remains  no  argument  for 
the  canonicity  of  those  books. 

ArfjumenU  for  the  Catholic  F«>if.  — The  Catholic  church 
so  far  as  it  deigns  to  explain  its  position,  says  that  we 
have  the  same  reason  for  receiving  the  deutero-canonical 
books,  as  we  have  for  the  proto-canonical  ones.  The 
reasons  given  are: 

[a.)  A  tradition  in  the  church,  running  back  to  the 
Apostles. 

{b.)  The  concurrent  belief  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches. 

{c.)  The  authority  of  the  Roman  church. 

When  asked  to  give  reasons  for  the  non-appearance 
of  these  books  in  the  Palestinian  canon,  they  give  three 
reasons : 

(1.)  Some  of  these  books  had  not  appeared  when  the 
Jewish  canon  closed. 

(2.)  Others  though  in  existence  liad  not  yet  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  people  after  their  re- 
turn from  the  Babj-lonish  captivity. 

(3.)  The  Synagogue  had  not  yet  enough  information 
in  order  to  decide  whether  they  were  canonical  or  not. 

The  Protestant  view  as  distinguished  from  these  two 
opposing  views  rests  mainly  on  the  clear  and  deep  dis- 
tinction made  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  (  F/rf^  Smith's 
'■'■  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.''  Art.  Apocrypha.) 

REASONS  FOR  REJECTING  THE  APOCRYPHAL  BOOKS. 

(1.)  The  confessed  absence  from  them  of  the  pro- 
phetic element. 


90 

(2.)    The  deterioration  in   poetic    dignity  and   power, 

(3.)    In  the  historical  parts, 

(a.)    A  manifest  presence  of  iietion  and  legend  ; 

(b.)  The  assumption  of  false  names  to  give  weight  to 
authorship. 

(c.)  The  incorporation  of  forged  documents  as  gen- 
uine. 

(f/.)    Gross  historical  inaccuracies. 

(4.)  In  doctrine  a  frequent  subservience  to  the  tech- 
nical and  formal  Judaism,  and  to  novelty  of  beliefs. 

The  Authenticity  and  Integrity  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon. 

It  is  evident  that  .we  cannot  examine  the  Old 
Testament  books  in  the  same  way  as  those  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  respect  to  individual  authorship.  The  Old 
Testament  covers  a  period  of  thirty-five  hundred  years; 
the  books  constituting  it  were  composed  within  one 
thousand  (1000)  or  tw^elve  hundred  (1200)  years.  The 
New  Testament  covers  a  period  of  less  than  one  century, 
and  were  composed  within  forty  years.  With  regard 
to  the  Old  Testament  we  have  no  quotations  by  Fathers; 
no  early  versions;  the  oldest  manuscripts  are  much  more 
remote  from  the  original  than  those  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. More  of  the  Old  Testament  books  are  anony- 
mously written,  than  in  the  New  Testainent.  In  some 
cases  when  they  bear  a  name,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
author  v^^as  a  principal  character  or  mere  historian.  The 
evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
grouped  under  (1.)  Internal  and  (2.)  External  Evidence. 
.  I.  General  Internal  'Evidence  of  the  virtual  authenticity, 
and  substantial  integrity  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
'  A.  There  is  a  marked  congruity  between  th6  alleged 
authorship  when  indicated,  and  the  subjects  treated. 

B.  In  many  cases  characteristics  of  iStyle  confirm  the 
assertion  or  tradition  by  which  a  book  is  ascribed  to  a 
certain  age  or  even  to*  a  given  author.' 

C.  The  general  s[)irit  of  these  books  is  that  of  authen- 
tic words  rather  than  that  of  conscious  fabrications. 

D.  As  far  as  we  have  at  any  point  parallel  accounts 
within  the  Scriptures  themselves,  (Kings  and  Chronicles) 
the  general   structure  of  several    narratives  agrees  with 


91 

the   oiipposition   of   aiitbeiiticity,    ratlior   than    with    the 
theory  of  spurious  autiiorship. 

2.  Erlcrnal  Eoidence  of  the  virt'ial  authentidtu  and  sub- 
stantial Integrity  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.— These 
are  : 

A.  The  faith  of  tlie  Jews.  The  Jews  cherished  this 
belief  and  were  more  concerned  than  any  other  nation  \\\ 
identifying  them.  They  had  reasons  to  scrutinize  them. 
The  nature  of  the  books,  made  it  important  for  them  to 
know  of  tlieir  authenticity.  Therefor<^  their  faith  must 
be  a  warrant  to  us. 

B.  Allusions  made  by  Christ  and  tlie  Apostles. 
These  books  are  referred  to,  quoted  by  reguhir  formuhe. 
They  were  regarded  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles  with 
even  more  reverence  than  by  the  Jews.  Some  allege  that 
whei]  Christ  quotes  Moses,  Isaiah,  David,  etc.,  he  does 
not  mean  to  sanction  the  belief  that  these  books  were 
written  by  those  authors  ;  but  as  He  desired  to  guard 
against  controversy  He  admitted  and  did  not  contradict 
U  their  claim,  although  it  was  erroneous.  We  do  not  be- 
!  lieve  in  such  a  Christ.  We  have  not  so  learned  Him,  as 
to  accredit  Him  with  commonplace  ignorance,  o'r  to  im- 
pute to  Him  such  craftiness  as  to  suppose  tliat  out  of 
misunderstandings  He  made  arguments  more  convinc- 
ing. 

THE    CREDIBILITY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURES. 

Here  too  we  have  not  the  same  advantage  as  in  the 
New  Testament.      We  shall  notice, 

(1.)  That  these  historical  facts  in  the  Old  Testament 
are  connected  with,  and  recorded  because  they  are  con- 
nected with  an  alleged  series  of  divine  communications, 
having  the  highest  aim,  the  widest  reach,  the  most  in- 
tense eftect.  Christianity  appeared  among  the  Jewish 
people,  whose  history  is  recorded  in  these  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.  It  drew  its  explanation  and  justifica- 
tion from  them.  It  declares  itself  to  be  the  completion 
of  the  system  partly  developed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. When  we  keep  in  mind  what  was  the  purpose  of 
God  in  preserving  the  Jewish  people;  when  we  find  the 
continuity  and  consecutiveness,  we  infer  a  reliableness 
which  other  records  cannot  have.     The  presence  of  the 


92 

miraculous  in  such  a  liistory  is  to  be  expected  ;  its  ab- 
sence would  be  more  surprising  and  perplexing:  there- 
fore it  is  one  of  ihe  considerations  that  commend  the 
history  as  a  whole  to  us  as  credible. 

(2.)  Many  of  the  signs  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
documents  are  likewise  signs  of  the  credibility  of  the 
nArrative,  We  do  not  know  the  authorship  of  many  of 
the  books,  but  so  far  as  we  do  know  them,  they  are 
worthy  of  credit.  If  tliey  are  from  their  accredited  au- 
thors, a  great  many  nunutise  are  explained  ;  so  far  forth 
as  the}'  can  be  identified,  the  authors  are  eye-witnesses, 
or  claim  to  have  used  documents,  as  sources  of  infor- 
mation, to  which  they  refer.  They  have  the  three  re- 
quisites of  opportunity,  competence  and  character.  The 
authorship  of  these  books  was  subject  to  the  scrutiny  of 
all  the  nation.  Where  the  authors  are  not  known  we 
are  referred  to  authentic  documents,  and  these  docu-- 
ments  composed  by  public  men,  under  official,  national 
sanction,  or  by  schools  of  prophets,  are  such  as  any 
critic  should  wish  to  have.  No  other  records  are  written 
with  such  care  and  sufficienc}'.  Tlie  world  may  be 
challenged  to  show  a  history  more  unshrinking  in  the 
description  of  the  disgrace,  shame  and  ruin,  of  the 
nation. 

(3.)  The  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament  is  con- 
firmed at  some  points,  in  some  particulars  by  external 
corroboration. 

(a)  Confirmations  are  to  be  found  in  Jewish  obser- 
vances, whose  existence  is  carried  back  to  certain  his- 
torical statements;  is  explained  by  them,  and  remains 
unexplained  on  any  other  hj-pothesis.  Many  of  the 
rites  of  tlie  Jews  had  a  spiritual  import;  many,  a  com- 
memorative meaning.  They  were  instituted  to  com- 
memorate certain  historical  facts.  It  is  said  that  these 
may  have  originated  in  a  different  way.  There  is  how- 
ever a  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  theory.  It  is 
the  supposition  that  the  people  should  have  mistaken 
the  object  of  their  commemoration  ;  that  they  should 
have  been  persuaded  to  adopt  a  new  explanation  for 
thera.  Borssuet  says  :  "  there  were  in  a  certain  sense, 
two  histories  of  Moses;  one  in  the  books  which  bear 
his  name;  another  in  the  institutions  which  he  estab- 
lished." 


98 

(7;)  The  existence  of  Christianity,  and  some  of  the 
forms  under  which  it  is  set  forth,  confirm  in  important 
particulars  the  credihility  of  tiie  Ohl  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. That  Christianity  exists  at  all  is  a  confirmation. 
The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  point  to  it;  some  of  the 
forms  of  Christianity  confirm  the  old  recoi-d.  (Chris- 
tianity is  not  a  philosopliy  cominof  to  sni)ersede  another 
philosophy;  it  is  an  historical  religion,  cominij  to  sup- 
plant another  historical  roliirion.  ^It  takes  its  element 
from  the  Old  Testament.  The  God  of  Christianity  is 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  phraseology  used 
to  describe  its  observances,  facts,  doctrines  arc  of  the 
same  general  type. 

((')  The  discovery  of  numerous  and  important  con- 
firmations of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  from  foreign,  secu- 
lar sources,  are  some  of  the  richest  results  of  modern 
scholarship.  Egyptian,  Assyrian  records  surprisingly 
confirm  the  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is 
the  more  surprising,  because  they  were  beyond  the 
reach  and  anticipation  of  the  Old  Testament  writers. 
{Vide  Rawlinson's  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  ^^  Historical 
Evidences  of  ChrisdanitJ/;"  Gillett  on  "■Ancient  Cities  and 
Empires-/'  Pratt's  "-ScripfHre  and  Science  not  at  Variance;" 
Savilie,  "  Truth  of  the  Bible.'' 

(4.)  The  highest  and  most  conclusive  proofs  of  the 
creflibility  of  the  Old  Testament  are  the  proofs  of  its 
inspiration.  All  the  former  arguments  refer  to  the 
human  side.  If  the  human  writings  are  so  confirmed, 
shall  inspired  writers  not  be  believed?  (2  Peter  1  :  21.) 
Whatever  dsoTtusuavo^,  2  Tim.  3,16,  may  mean  it  certainly 
implies  credibility.  Christ  and  the  Apostles  appeal  to  the 
Old  Testament  so  deferentially;  "  it  cannot  be  broken," 
could  not  have  been  said  of  a  mere  human  writing. 

Some  ask  to  what  extent  are  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  credible.  There  are  three  positions  in  regard 
to  this  question. 

(a)  The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  credible  in 
whatever  they  contain  as  matters  of  revelation. 

(6)  That  the  credibility  extends  to  the  greater  histor- 
ical statements  connected  with  these  matters  of  reve- 
lation. 

(f)  That  it  covers  the  whole  of  the  books. 


94 

If  tlie  credibility  of  these  Scriptures  is  good  in  great 
matters,  why  should  it  fail  in  the  minutiae.  The  guar- 
antees of  character  reach  over  the  whole  extent.  No 
reason  can  be  given  for  the  restriction.  Moreover,  no 
line  of  discrimination  as  to  which  are  great  and  which 
are  small  can  be  drawn.  Wc  are  told  that  it  is  a  part 
of  the  moral  probation  of  every  man  to  draw  this  line. 
If  this  is  so,  why  are  we  not  informed,  charged  and 
warned  of  it?  Would  it  not  be  a  tantalizing  gift  to 
know  that  the  word  of  God  was  somewliere  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  not  be  able  to  lind  it?  It  is  however 
for  those  who  take  this  ground  to  prove  it.  The  phra- 
seology of  the  Bible  seems  to  point  to  the  whole  as  in- 
spired. 

HISTORICAL    DIFFICULTIES. 

(1.)  We  are  asked  on  historical  evidence  to  believe 
that  which  is  impossible,  intrinsically  incredible;  in 
other  words  miraculous.  What  we  are  asked  to  believe 
on  historical  testimon}-  is,  that  something  occurred.  In  the 
same  way  as  for  any  other  historical  fact  we  take  the 
testimony  of  those  who  "aw  the  occurrence.  In  ordi- 
nary events  the  causes  of  the  occurrence  are  known  ;  in 
extraordinary  events,  they  are  unknown.  It  belongs  to 
histor}^  to  examine  testimony  for  external  events  ;  to 
philosophy  to  inquire  into  the  cause. 

(2.)  We  are  asked  to  believe  on  historical  evidence 
things  having  contrary  accounts.  It  is  an  irrational 
mode  of  dealing,  to  throw  aside  every  thing  of  which 
there  are  disagreeing  accounts.  Even  if  there  are  points 
which  cannot  be  harmonized,  we  ought  to  admit  them, 
but  at  the  same  time  remember  the  weight  of  evidence 
on  the  other  side. 

(3.)  We  are  asked  to  believe  historical  accounts,  the 
most  conspicuous  element  in  which  is  their  faulty 
chronology. 

It  may  be  admitted  that  there  are  errors  by  copyists  ; 
that  tliere  are  some  numbers  (e.  g,  fort}'  years)  which 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  writers  speak  in  general  terms, 
rather  than  definitely.  It  is  said  that  the  whole  period 
ascribed  to  certain  long  series  of  events  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, is  too   short,  and   ijiconsistent  with  known  facts 


95 

of  secular  history.  The  difference.^  are  cited  between 
the  Septuao:int,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  Samaritan 
version  and  Josephus,  as  follows: 

From  Creation  to  Delugh. 


Heb.  Scrip. 
1656. 

Samaritan .            Josephas. 
1307.                  2365. 

Septaarjint 
2242. 
2262.' 

From  the 

Deluge  to  the  Birth  of 

Arraham, 

Heb.  Scrip. 
292. 

Samaritan .            Jose  p  has. 
942.                   1002. 

The  Whole  Period. 

Sepfa.a(/int 
1172. 
1072. 

Heb.  Scrip. 
1948. 

Samaritan.            Josephas. 
2249.                  3267. 

Septuaqivt 
3414. 
3334. 

The  discrepancies  may  have  been  increased  by  errors 
in  copying,  the  more  easily  as  the  Hebrew  letters  are 
very  easily  mistaken. 

(4.)  In  the  Old  Testament  especially  we  find  exaggera- 
tion and  extravagance,  especially  in  regard  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  children  of  Israel  when  they  came  out  of 
Egypt;  the  large  flocks  which  went  through  the  wilder- 
ness. All  that  can  be  asked  is,  that  these  objectors  see 
what  is  recorded,  and  implied  in  the  text. 

It  is  not  merely  to  satisfy  critics  that  we  have  made 
this  investigation.  The  historical  character  of  the  Scrip- 
tiires  demanded  it.  It  is  moreover  for  tlie  interest  of  an 
intelligent  iaith.  Historical  criticism  is  only  one  of  the 
many  means  of  examination,  and  for  much  of  its  work 
our  material  is  meagre.  In  regard  to  the  internal  criti- 
cism the  results  are  greatly  modified  by  the  state  of  mind 
of  tlie  critic,  as  well  as  by  the  methods  which  he  uses. 
All  come  with,  a  bias  on  one  side  or  another,  to  this  in- 
quiry. Historical  criticism  must  at  the  best  be  incom- 
plete and  problematical.  Most  of  our  objections  to  the 
Scriptures  originate  with  men  who  when  they  begin  are 
prejudiced  against  the  Bible,  and  therefore  deny  ex- 
pressly its  uniqueness.  When  we  remember  how  far 
they  are  from  establishing  any  point  against  the  claims 
of  the  Bible  we  may  rest  assured,  and  the   books  which 


96 

criticism  passes  by  admitting  them  invulnerable  are 
enoui^h  to  establish  all  the  Christian  doctrine. 

Historical  Evidences. 

The  historical  evidences  of  the  divine  origin  and  authority 
of  Christianity. — They  are 

I.  The  Scriptures  themselves. 

II.  Jesus  Christ  as  delineated  in  the  Scriptures. 
Iir.  The  miracles  therein  recorded. 

IV.  The  prophecies  therein  recorded,  with  their  de- 
clared or  demonstrable  fulfillment. 

V.  The  results  of  Christianity,  the  earliest  of  which 
are  recorded  therein. 

I.  The  argument  from  Scripture. 

This  is  partly  negative  and  partly  positive.  What- 
ever characteristics  of  the  Scriptures  are  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  their  human  origin,  will  be  proof  of 
their  divine  origin.  This  will  be  supplemented  by  all 
evidences  afforded  by  discoverable  analogies  between 
Scripture,  and  whatever  else  \\q  believe  to  be  the  work 
of  God. 

General  Characteristics  of  Scripture. 

A.  The  general  theme  of  the  Scripture  and  the  way 
in  which  it  is  presented  show  that  the  Scriptures  are 
from  God.  The  natural  relations  and  the  gracious  re- 
lations existing  between  man  and  God,  the  relations  de- 
signed to  exist  and  those  which  have  resulted  from  man's 
corrupt  nature  are  all  accurately  described  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Man's  present  relations  are  complex  to  tliis  ex- 
tent that  correct  and  adequate  exhibitions  of  these  rela- 
tions are  to  be  presented  only  from  above.  The  book 
which  truly  exhibits  these  complex  relations  therefore 
must  be  of  divine  origin. 

The  way  these  relations  are  set  forth,  partly  historicul, 
partly  didactic  in  appropriate  proportions  and  relations, 
is  also  divine. 

B.  The  aim  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  way  in  which 
the  accomplishment  of  this  aim  is  sought  are  proof  of 
its  divine  origin.  The  aim  of  imparting  information  is 
knowledge,  but  the  biblical  idea  of  knowledge  is  different 
from  that  of  the  historian  or  scientist.  Its  aim  is  to 
raise   us  from   and  by  the  knowledge  which  it  gives  us 


97 

about  God  to  kiiowiiio;  God.  Tlie  way  in  which  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  is  aons^lit  is  distinctive  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  not  merely  to  reach  tlie  understanding^  hy 
instruction,, or  the  emotions,  or  tlie  conscipiico  or  the 
will  by  appeals,  but  to  sliow  that  if  all  this  were  done 
there  is  still  sometliino-  which  could  not  be  remedied. 
So  that  while  our  aim  in  one  sense  is  to  set  in  motion 
every  power  in  another  it  is  to  point  to  man  his  only 
possible  hope. 

C.  Their  unity  considered  in  connection  with  their 
progressive  development  and  production. 

Historical  criticism  disinteticrates  the  Scriptures  and 
overlooks  their  unity;  it  takes  them  book  by  book, 
chapter  by  chapter,  and  verse  by  verse.  The  sixty-six 
books  written  by  about  forty  men,  throus^h  fifteen  or  six- 
teen hundred  years,  are  one  production,  but  their  unity  is 
not  uniformity.  We  must  ascribe  these  books  to  the 
power  which  ruled  their  time.  We  discern  a  unity  and 
progress  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  much  more  coi^ent  is 
this  demonstration,  when  we  pass  to  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures.  The  Old  Testament  lays  its  stress  on  forms, 
the  New  on  principles.  There  is  a  unity  and  progres- 
siveness,  which  denotes  superhuman  ori<riii.  Man's  ad- 
vancing attainments  and  interests  will  not  account  for  it. 

D.  The  comprehensiveness  of  Scripture  in  respect  to 
themes,  considered  in  connectionvvith  the  subordination 
of  all  individual  themes  to  the  one  great  subject  and  end. 
Scripture  deals  witli  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  yet  in 
another  sense  it  has  but  one  subject.  Matters  political, 
ethical,  economical,  historical,  religious,  are  all  treated 
with  more  or  less  frequencj-  yet  all  are  subordinate  to 
one  theme.  Men  cannot  pass  by  what  the  Scriptures 
have  to  say  on  these  subjects,  if  they  would  handle  their 
subjects  fairly  and  exhaustively;  yet  while  the  Bible  is 
thus  encyclopedic,  its  aim  is  not  to  touch  briefly,  and  yet 
effectively  the  greatest  variety  of  subjects,  but  to  show 
the  importance  of  one  great  subject,  viz.,  the  religious. 
God  is  the  being  to  whom  all  is  subordinate.  The  reve- 
lation of  the  Creator,  and  of  the  Providential  and  Moral 
Governor,  is  subsidiary  to  God  as  Redeemer.  The  lirst 
disclosures  are  the  foundation  of  what  afterwards  was 
to  be  revealed.     What  God  was   to  the  world,  what  the 


98 

world  was  to  Iliiii  ;  wliat  the  world  has  become  to  God, 
and  God  to  it,  this  is  disclosed  in  order  to  show  what  it 
will  become  to  Ilim  and  He  to  it,  in  redemption. 

E.  The  provisions  which  the  Scriptures  make  for 
promoting  njan's  leligions  interest  of  every  kind,  it 
gathers  about  and  offers  in  one  great  central  form,  the 
God-man  Jesus  Christ.  No  other  religious  book  does 
sucli  a  thing;  the  Bible  is  the  Book  of  the  Messiah. 
Messiah  needed,  Messiah  come  ;  this  is  the  main  story 
of  the  Bible.  That  God  has  made  the  provision  needed 
and  with  which  man  should  be  satisHcd  is  the  purpose  of 
the  Bible  to  unfold.  The  more  this  system  is  compared 
with  others,  the  more  this  distinctive  character  of  the 
Bible  stands  out.  Furthermore;  the  Bible  reaches  an 
experience  in  the  Chi'istian's  heart  which  to  him  is  con- 
vincing, though  he  may  not  be  able  to  make  it  felt  by 
others.  Offering  Christ  is  the  Bible's  way  of  solving  the 
religious  problem.  OMiis  book  is  not  of  earth  ;  it  is 
divine  by  negative  and  positive  proof;  divine  because  it 
cannot  be  human,  and  because  it  is  so  superior  to  all 
others  of  human  origin. 

II.    JESUS    CHRIST    AS    DELINEATED    IN  THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

The  delineation  of  Christ  which  the  Scriptures  give 
is  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity.  Tliere 
are  two  forms  of  this  argument: 

(1.)  Looking  at  the  delineation  and  saying  it  is  not 
human,  and 

(2.)  Looking  at  the  person. 

(1.)  The  delineation  is  not  human. 

(a)  The  delineation  must  have  had  a  subject. 

[h]  In  the  delineation  of  that  subject  divine  power  is 
seen;  it  was  divinely  moulded.  The  dcjineation  of 
Christ  is  not  an  ideal  picture,  but  a  real  one  ;  a  true 
portrait. 

Man  never  showed  either  the  disposition  or  the 
ability  to  form  such  a  sketch  ;  in  all  the  range  of  liter- 
ature there  is  nothing  parallel.  It  is  too  broadly  human 
and  too  unhuman  to  l)e  a  creation  of  the  human  mind. 
Least  of  all,  could  one  of  such  a  strong  nationality  as 
the  Jew,  have  conceived  of  such  a  nature,  character  and 
work  as  that  of  Christ.     If  Christ  was  before  the  biog- 


99 

rapliers.tliey  could  not  Iiave  picrnred  him  with  a  human 
power.  Their  acconnt  is  divinely  m-nilded.  The  verv 
inforniality,  simplicity,  sobriety  and  want  of  oxa<;<;eration 
of  the  portraiture  show  it  to  be  divine  ;  for  such  would 
not  liave  been  the  style  of  men,  writing  of  one  whom 
they  thought  divine. 

(2.)  The  person  whom  the  Scriptures  foretell  and  pre- 
dict as  the  Christ,  [>roves  the  record  divine,  whose  theme 
and  founder  He  was.  He  is  so  central  tliat  in  a  sense 
He  is  Christianity,  The  evidence  h\*  which  all  other  doc- 
trines must  stand  or  fall  is  centered  on  Him. 

(a)  The  correspondence  between  tlie  predicted  and 
real  Christ  is  one  element  in  this  convincing  evidence. 
The  predictions  are  so  various  and  different  that  no  pre- 
tender would  have  known  what  to  be,  oi-  how  to  act,  in 
order  to  fulfill  them;  but  Christ  fullilled  all  because  He 
was  the  Christ. 

(b)  The  unique  nature  and  character  of  Christ  can 
be  nothing  less  than  divinely  moulded  and  divinely 
evidential.  Compare  the  incarnation  of  Christ  with  all 
fabled  incarnations,  and  this  is  clearly  seen.  Christ  does 
not  so  much  say,  "  learn  what  I  teach,"  as  "  learn  of 
me;"  not  so  much  "live  as  I  live,"  as  "  live  in  me.'" 
That  He  should  thus  connect  tliC  true  religion  with 
Himself  is  peculiar  to  him.  His  character  is  such,  that 
we  must  accept  all  he  saj'S  as  true,  both  in  regard  to 
Himself  and  to  others. 

The  words,  work  and  life  of  Christ,  whetlier  con- 
sidered in  aggregate  or  in  detail;  whether  we  examine 
those  elements  which  seem  most  spontaneous,  or  those 
which  have  in  them  most  of  forethought ;  whether  in 
themselves  or  in  their  power  to  influence  men,  the  de- 
cision is  the  same  in  every  case, — the}'  are  divine.  Tlie 
naturalness,  the  harmony  pervading  all,  the  spirit  and 
purpose  in  all,  the  personal  in  Christ,  standing  related 
to  all  that  is  most  permanent  in  Christianity,  prove  it  to 
be  divine.  He  spoke  as  He  did.  He  wroughtas  He  did,  be- 
cause He  was  what  He  was, — divine, 

Christ  cannot  be  accounted  for,  by  any  or  by  all 
the  forces  wliich  work  in  history  to  make  men  what 
they  are.  He  was  not  the  product  of  His  time;  He 
must  have  been  divine. 


100 


III.   PROPHECY  AND  ITS  FULFILLMENT. 

PropJieoj  Classed  as  an  E:r,tcrnal  Eddence  of  Christianity. 

External  evidence  is  of  tliat  clinracter  wliicli  consists 
in  those  murks  of  credibility  which  \vc  observe  in  look- 
ins:  to  the  witnesses  of  the  message  and  methods  of  their 
delivery.  Internal  evidences  are  those  which  are  fonnd 
in  the  contents  themselves.  Paley  places  proidiecy 
among  the  auxiliary  evidences.  We  drop  the  old  group- 
ing of  extei'ual  and  •internal.  The  C/hristian  Religion 
consists  in  part  of  historical  facts,  in  part  of  religions 
truths,  moral  principles,  and  positive  institutions  con- 
nected with  the  religious  life  of  men.  Proofs  are  mainly 
of  the  historical  kind,  because  they  come  by  histoi'ical 
recoi'd. 

The  prophecies  and  their  fulfillment  belong  to  the 
way  in  which  Christianity  was  introduced  into  the 
world,  and  are  not  essentially  of  tlie  nature  and  essence- 
of  the  Christian  religion.  The  Christian  religion  might 
have  been  all  it  is  now  liad  no  prophecies  beei'  uttered  ; 
therefore  we  discuss  this  proof  among  the  historical 
evidences. 

1.  The  3Ieanmg  of  Propheeij  in  Apologetics.  —  When  we 
speak  of  propliecy  as  supjilying  a  proof,  we  mean  in  a 
limited,  specific  se'nse,  a  real  foretelling  of  future  events 
such  as  shows  that  divine  omniscience  has  come  to  the 
aid  of  tlie  finite  knowledge  of  men. 

But  the  prophets  had  a  much  wider  work  than  this  ; 
many  of  them  foretold  nothing.  They  were  the  repre- 
sentatives of  God  among  the  people;  to  teach,  warn, 
rebuke,  illustrate  godliness.  The  term  prophet  is  usu- 
ally employed  in  the  narrow  sense.  The  prophetic  in- 
stitution alone  without  pi-ediction  miglit  be  framed  into 
a  powerful  argument  for  the  divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

2.  The  occurrence  of  prediciire  Proph(c>/  in  0.  T.andN.  T.; 
thefaot  and  its  declared  purpose. 

The  church  believes  there  have  been  such  prophecies. 
Historical  criticism  says  it  is  remarkable  forecasting  but 
not  foretelling.  This  opposition  often  springs  from 
avowed  hostility  to  the  supernatural. 

These  critics  do  not  hesitate  to  attack  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  when  they  admit  prophecy  in  the  O.  T. 


101 


In  others  it  comes  from  a  rationjilistic-uiiwillingness 
to  admit  anytliin<:j  that  transcends  unaided  hnnian  power, 
and  thus  the  mumber  of  prophecies  is  reduced  to  a  min- 
imum. Some  orthodox  writers  ijo  too  far  in  deference 
to  this  destructive  criticism.  (See  Princeton  Review, 
July,  1878,  Prophets  and  Prophecy,  Dr.  W.  II.  Green.) 

The  ohject  of  prophecy  was  not  to  arrest  attention, 
nor  to  satisfy  curiosity  ;  it  was  one  aim  of  tliese  com- 
munications to  accredit  the  men  as  servants  of  God  hv 
whom  the  projihecies  wt'yc  made.  The  accreditini; 
would  be  in  part  to  the  cotemporaries  of  the  proithets, 
out  more  after  the  fultillment.  Christ  and  Christianity 
were  predicted. 

3.  7 he  Conditions  of  Validiti/ :  proof  from  Alleqed 
Prop  hen/. 

a.  The  real  futurity  of  the  event.  But  critics  aim  to 
show  that  there  is  deception,  e.  g.,  Daniel  not  written  by 
Daniel  but  long  after. 

6.  The  event  must  be  beyond  the  reach  of  mere  hu- 
man discei-nment,  e.  g.,  Burke  foresaw  the  French  Rev- 
olution. 

c.  The  subsequent  occurrence  of  the  event  with  mi- 
nute and  specific  exactness  as  foretold.  Otherwise  an 
event  cannot  carry  conviction  as  a  fulfillment  of  proph- 
ecy. 

d.  The  event  must  not  involve  colhision  between  the 
per.'^on  foretelling  and  those  accomplishing  it,  nor  be 
dependent  upon  the  prediction  for  its  fulfillment. 

It  usually  comes  to  pass  in  the  Bible  without  any 
knowledge  on  the  part  of  tlie  actors  that  they  were  ful- 
filling prophecy  except  in  the  case  of  Christ.  In  many 
cases  enemies  to  God  and  Christ  are  the  ones  who  ful- 
fil prophec}',  the  last  tiling  they  would   knowingly  do. 

e.  There  n\ust  be  in  the  prediction  an  obvious  dcsif/n 
to  jiredict,  and  a  distinct  challenging  of  attention  to  it 
at  the  time.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  prophet  com- 
prehend i'uUy  his  own  prediction.  He  utters  the  mes- 
sage received  from  God.  Thus  is  met  the  objection  to 
the  possibility  of  specific  prophecies.  Some  say  that 
individual  terms,  as  Cyprus,  Bethlehem,  etc.,  are  only 
general  terms.     Answer.    This  is  bagging  the  question. 

/.  In  many  cases  we  discover  a  divinely  proportional 
blending  of  vagueness  with   precision  in  the  particulars 


102 

of  the  prediction  ;  so  as  on  the  one  hand  to  secure  the 
identification  of  the  fiiltillment,  \vhile  on  the  other  hand 
it  prevents  the  possibility  of  pretended  fiilfiUment.  In 
this  case  the  prophet  must  have  had  kno\vled<re. 

4.  Other  uses  of  Predictwe  P/  ophec)/  besu/es  the  Eoi- 
dential. 

One  purpose  was  to  make  evident  the  purpose  of 
God.  It  makes  more  vivid  the  fact  of  God's  rehition 
to  his  churcli,  it  excites  devout  expectation,  stimuhites 
the  desire,  and  sustains  the  faith  of  the  church.  It 
awakens  anxiety  and  fear.  Tlie  prophets  were  preachers 
of  righteousness,  and  predictive  prophecy  aided  the  di- 
dactic and  hortatory  presentation  of  truth  and  dut}'  by 
God's  servants  to  men.  The  prophet  must  have  tie  con- 
fidence of  the  people. 

Object  of  Prophecies  iri  Regard  to  Christ. 

a.  To  give  certain  signs  by  which  the  Messiah  mig'nt 
be  identified  when  he  came. 

b.  To  keei»  alive  the  belief  that  the  i)romise  would 
be  fulfilled. 

c.  To  arouse  the  minds  of  men  to  a  lively  expectation 
that  "  the  latter  days'' spoken  of  by  the  prophets  had 
come. 

To  illustrate  and  confirm  the  teachings  of  the  past, 
to  emphasize  tlie  duties  of  the  present,  as  really  as  to 
create  expectation  for  the  future;  tliese  were  a  part  of 
the  design  of  prediction  in  relation  to  other  parts  of 
Scripture. 

5.  To  ivhom  loould  Predictive  Prophecy  carry  its  Evi- 
dential 31essa<]e  ?  Ans.  Only  those  to  whom  the  ful- 
fillment became  known  would  have  this  part  of  the 
proof.  A  propliecy  unfulfilled  lacks  just  so  much  as  the 
fulfillment  constitutes. 

Davidson  on  Prophecy  :  "Indications  of  design, 
fitness,  wisdom,  and  internal  truth  will  coalesce  witli  the 
fulfillment  as  evidence  for  prophecy."  (See  Fairbairn  on 
Prophecy.) 

6.  What  are  the  great  Truths  involved  in  and  emphasized 
by  each  instance  of  authenticated  Prophecy  ? 

a.  In  respect  to  God's  attributes  each  fulfillment 
involves  and  emphasizes  his  immutability,  omniscience, 
power,  etc. 


103 

b.  Hit?  general,  providential  and  moral  government  of 
the  world.  He  has  a  present  as  well  as  a  future  object 
in  the  prophec}-. 

c.  God's  special  ])rovidential  government.  lie  must 
have  a  specific  object  in  foretelling  at  a  particular  time, 
j)lace,  etc. 

(/.  God  has  a  specific  design,  to  accredit  his  human 
agent  to  whom  and  through  whom  the  prediction  is 
made, 

e.  The  things  ])redicted  are  usually  sutih  as  have  a 
peculiar  place  in  God's  regarcL 

7.    The  special  hcarvn/  of  Prophecy  on   Christianitii. 

The  most  extraordinary  prophecies  on  record  are 
found  extended  through  thousands  of  years  and  concern 
Christ  and  His  kingdom. 

When  the  fulfillment  came,  a  new  endorsement  for 
Judaism,  and  ever}-  prophet  as  a  servant  of  God,  follows. 
Judaism  was  fully  endorsed  only  wlien  its  work  was 
done. 

The  language  of  John  the  Baptist  ai)plies  to  Juda- 
ism also,  "  He  must  increase  but  I  must  decrease." 
Prophecies  are  miracles  of  knowledge.  We  now  come 
to  mira(;ies  of  power. 

rV.     MIRACLES. 

The  miracles  that  are  historically  recorded  in  the 
Scriptures  are  proof  of  diviui*  origin  and  authority'  of 
Christianity. 

There  are  three  terms  used   in  the  Scrij)ture8, rijOa-a, 

Design  of  miracles :  to  accredit  those  who  wi-ought 
them,  showing  superhuman  power  and  authority  of 
mission. 

Questions:  (1)  According  to  the  principles  of  human 
belief  are  such  events  possible?  We  call  them  violations 
of  nature's  laws.  (2)  Are  they  under  any  particular  cir- 
cumstances probable,  or  at  least  not  im|)robable  ?  (3) 
Are  they  credible  ?  Does  the  evidence  sullice  in  amount 
and  conclusiveness?  (4)  Suppose  them  possible,  jirob- 
able,  credible — is  the  conclusion  we  are  asked  to  draw 
warranted  by  the  fact? 

Through  many  centuries  miracles  were  received  un- 
disputed,  ascribed  to   magic,  art,  or  spirits.     The    fact 


104  ■ 

was  not  denied,  but  wroiiiijly  inter[ireted.  Now  unbelief 
denies  tbe  fact. 

1.    Possibiliiy  of  Jliracles. 

Def.  (Hedge)  "An  event  in  the  external  world 
brought  about  by  the  immediate  etRciency  of  God."  It 
must  stand  out  from  the  ordinar}'  course  of  events  in 
such  a  way  as  to  convince  men  that  God's  efficiency  is  the 
agency  at  work,  otherwise  it  will  not  attract  proper 
attention.  How  shall  men  be  led  to  ascribe  true  mir- 
acles to  God. 

(1.)  It  may  be  by  the  amount  or  quality  of  power 
displayed. 

(2.)  By  the  purpose  or  wisdom  shown. 

Sonjetimest  it  may  resemble  what  men  have  seen 
before,  e.  g.,  healing.  In  that  case  it  must  differ  from 
ordinary  cases,  no  remedies  used.  Christ  healed  by  a 
word.     Some  of  these  events  are  wholly  without  analogy. 

Another  definition  of  miracle  :  "  An  event  in  mani- 
fest opposition  to  all  the  hitherto  experienced  laws  of 
created  nature  which  are  afJected  b}'  the  miracle.  The 
event  has  no  true  material  or  physical  cause,  no  human 
cause,  as  the  will,  no  superhuman  created  cause,  as 
spirits  ;  but  is  wrought  by  God.'" 

Is  such  an  event  possible? 

a.  A  miracle  appears  to  be  wholly  within  the  original 
reach  of  omnipotence.  The  events  cannot  be  shown  to 
be  any  more  difficult  than  tliose  occurring  ever}' 
moment. 

b.  It  does  not  appear  that  when  God  instituted  the 
course  of  nature  that  he  put  limitations  on  his  own  om- 
nipotence. By  "course  of  nature  "  we  mean  the  way 
in  which  the  sequences  of  causes  and  effects  is  regularlv 
and  uniformly  developed  in  created  nature  according  to 
ordinary  experience,  observation  and  reason. 

Did  he  incor[»orate  into  nature  all  the  forces  that 
were  ever  to  work  in  the  original  schem.e  of  nature? 
The  objector  must  prove  that  He  did,  before  our  faith  is 
sliaken. 

c.  It  does  not  appear  that  God's  immutabUity  renders 
it  impossibile  for  him  to  work  in  nature  in  any  new  way. 
Belief  in  mi>'acles  does  not  require  us  to  believe  that  in 
unchanged  conditions,  God   changes  liis   method.     But 


105 

under  peculiar    conditions,    God    does    introduce     new 
causes. 

d.  tt  does  not  appear  that  God's  omniscience  inter- 
feres with  his  workiufy  a  miracle.  God  does  not  sub- 
stitute new  methods  and  agencies  for  the  old,  hut  to  ac- 
complish a  particular  end  in  a  particular  contingency  lie 
does  interpose. 

e.  That  God  makes  the  uniformity  of  nature,  a  truth 
apparent  as  well  as  important,  sensible  and  indisputable, 
does  not  make  it  impossible  that  in  special  circumstances 
and  on  worthy  occasions  God  should  work  miracles. 

/.  It  does  not  appear  that  God  has  imparted  his  own 
immutability  to  the  works  of  his  own  created  power. 
It  cannot  he  shown  that  any  thing  restricts  him  to  a 
certain  line  of  working. 

2.    Are  Miracles  Probahle  ? 

If  we  can  establish  that  they  are  not  improbable,  we 
neutralize  an  objection.  If  we  can  go  further  and  sliovv 
that  they  are  calculated  to  do  good  we  increase  the 
probability.  The  burden  of  proof  will  always  be  on  the 
side  of  apparent  or  alleged  interruption.  The  occasion 
of  the  interru[)tion  must  alway?  be  a  worthy  one.  Mir- 
acles are  offered  to  us  as  authenticating  a  divine  com- 
munication ;  to  authenticate  a  divine  messenger  and  his 
mission.     Is  not  this  a  worthy  occasion? 

Which  Would  be  the  greater,  loss  to  human  belief, 
expectation,  hope,  etc.,  the  loss  of  divine  communica- 
tion and  its  benefits,  or  the  loss  of  just  so  much  confi- 
dence in  the  uniformity  of  nature,  as  results  from  a 
single  infraction,  for  so  wise  a  purpose. 

The  communication  comes  from  God  and  must  be 
accredited  as  such.  If  in  order  to  this  it  must  be  ac- 
companied by  such  signs  of  divine  origin  is  it  improbable 
that  such  events  would  occur? 

"6.   Credihiliii/   of  Miracles. 

Of  a  miracle  aaid  to  have  occurred,  is  the  evidence 
sufficient?  Hume  says,  no  amount  of  evidence  could 
convince  a  reasonable  mind  that  such  an  event  occurred. 
Mill :  All  that  Hume  has  made  out  is  that  there  are  no 
evidences  to  prove  miracles  to  any  who  have  not  believed 
in  a  Being  of  supernatural  power.  Hume:  They  are 
contrary  to  all  experience,  and  hence  not  to  be  proved  by 
any  known  laws  of  evidence. 


106 

If  not  impossible  nor  improbable,  they  are  not  in- 
trinsically incredible.  Is  tliere  then  any  thing  in  the 
accompanying  circumstances  to  make  tljcm  incredible? 
Were  tliose  who  saw  them  deceived?  The  question 
turns  on  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses.  Could  they 
trust  their  senses  ? 

Objection  :  They  were  mistaken.  A)is.  There  were 
hundreds  of  Jews  present  sometimes.  Couid  they  Jiave 
been  deceived  ?  Often  unfriendly  witnesses  were  obliged 
to  believe. 

In  later  ages  the  credibilit}^  depends  on  testimony. 
Is  this  reliable?  The  question  turns  on  validity  in  gen- 
eral, and,  in  particular,  of  tlie  kind  in  hand. 

Objection  :  Testimony  itself  could  not  decide  in  such 
a  case,  and  further,  others  admit  the  force  of  testimon}-, 
but  not  the  kind  and  degree  given. 

Hume:  The  validity  of  testimony  rests  on  experience 
alone.  We  say  it  does  not,  but  on  the  validity  of  the 
testimony.  The  relation  of  language  to  thought  -creates 
in  us  a  disposition  to  rely  on  testimony.  The  element 
of  experience  determines  the  conditions  of  true  tes- 
timony. 

Hume:  The  best  result  that  can  be  obtained  is  ab- 
solute rest  or  equilibrium.  Ans.  The  improbability  that 
such  testimony  is  false  is  greater  than  that  the  miracle 
occurred  in  the  given  circumstances.  It  may  be  highly 
irrational  to  receive  such  testimony  as  this. 

How  is  it  in  regard  to  the  N.  T.  miracles?  The 
witnesses  were  eye-witnesses,  usually  many,  of  mixed 
prepossessions  and  sympathies.  The  fads  are  numerous, 
clear,  public,  easily  tested.  The  momejitous  nature  of 
the  issues  involved  was  sucli  as  called  for  the  greatest 
pcrutiu}',  and  strong  prejudices  had  to  be  overcome  in  . 
those  who  believed  the  facts  and  accepted  their  inter- 
pretation. Those  who  did  not  believe  the  evidence  of 
these  miracles,  appear  not  to  have  denied  the  facts,  but 
the  way  in  which  they  were  brought  about.  Some  of 
the  miracles  are  internal,  and  essential  to  Christianit}'; 
not  external  corroborations  merely  ;  e.  g.,  the  resurrec- 
tion. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in  be- 
lieving  these   miracles,  nor  that  a  perfect  belief  will  be 


107 

attained  in  any  case.  Those  who  reject  them  have  im- 
perfect views  of  inspiration,  donbt  as  to  an  ovcrrnlinir 
Providence,  prayer,  creation,  and  even  the  existence  of 
a  personal  God. 

4.    The  Ecidential  Bearing  and  Power  of  Miracles. 

If  in  a  o:iven  instance  or  series  of  instances  evidence 
valid  in  kind  and  in  amount  be  advanced,  so  that  we  as 
believers  in  natnre  and  in  God  are  satisfied,  then  what 
follows?  What  credit  accrnes  to  the  messen^rer,  his 
messai>;e,  or  the  dispensation  to  which  he  belonsjs. 

Objection.  Natural  phenomena  can  prove  no  spiritual 
truth.     The  physical  cannot  prove  the  spiritual. 

Ans.  It  is  not  claimed  that  something  is  made  true 
by  a  miracle  which  was  not  true  before,  nor  that  an  ar- 
gument is  made  correct,  nor  a  demonstration  apparent. 
God  by  these  means  accredits  the  messengers.  The 
truth  is  in  the  miracle,  the  agent,  and  the  system  or  dis- 
pensation with  which  he  is  connected  are  accredited  by 
the  niiracle.  In  fact  the  agent  is  accredited  to  himself 
as  God's  agent. 

Internal  evidence  is  always  better  than  external.  It 
cannot  so  immediately  arrest  attention  as  the  external. 
By  many  it  is  less  perfectly  appreciated.  In  Ileb.  ii,  4, 
see  the  design  of  miracles,  viz.,  the  witness  God  gave  to 
his  messengers  to  convince  men  that  these  were  his 
agents.  Is  this  sufficient  for,  and  atlapted  to  its))urpose? 
Is  it  efficient  or  should  it  be?  Dr.  Mozley  (Bampton 
Lectures,  1865.)  The  visible  supernatural  is  the  appro- 
priate witness  of  the  invisible  supernatural.  This  goes 
straight  to  the  point.  A  token  being  wanted  of  divine 
communication,  this  is  tliat  token.  Atittingsign  would 
naturally  take  a  form  analogous  to  creative  work,  and 
sucli  are  mii-acles.  The  production  of  works  that  seem 
opposed  to  all  former  experience  in  like  circumstances 
is  analogous  to  creation.  It  is  an  intervention  by  God. 
Prof.  Nitzsch  says:  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  Is  that  doc- 
trine or  fact  ?  It  is  fact.  Salvation  has  come  into  the 
world.  Is  tliat  doctrine  or  fact  ?  It  is  fact.  Miracles 
are  in  connection  with  fact. 

Objection:  The  alleged  miracles, were  not  convincing 
to  those  who  saw  them,  and  were  near  them.  Why 
then  should  we  believe  ?     What  »uode  has  persuaded  all 


log 

men  to  receive  evidence  from  Goc)  ?  It  is  essential  to 
moral  evidence  that  there  be  a  possibility  of  disbeliev- 
ing.    It  is  never  eovnpnlsory. 

As  to  lying  wonders,  as  in  Egypt,  they  were  counter- 
feits suffered  b}'  God,  to  be  tested  by  their  connection 
and  manifest  spiritual  teaching.  Pharisees  said  Christ 
wrought  by  Beelzebub.  Christ  replied,  "  Satan  cannot 
cast  out  Satan." 

Miracles  are  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  system 
they  purport  to  attest.  The  most  important  of  them  are 
internal  and  vital  (e.  g..  Resurrection.) 

But  some  will  not  look  at  the  evidence  of  miracles. 
Strauss:  Miracle  had  a  subjective  origin.  People  had 
made  up  their  minds,  that  Christ  must  do  this  and  that 
so  they  made  up  miracle=  enough  to  identify  him. 

Reuiin  :  The  men  of  those  times  were  ignorant  and 
credulous,  this  fact  is  to  be  presupposed  wherever 
miracles  are  believed  in. 

Strauss  does  not  implicate  Christ.  Renan  does,  in 
deception. 

Zeller  :  Miracles  and  the  historical  investigation  of 
a  subject  are  mutually  exclusive.  If  you  have  one  you 
must  give  up  the  otlier. 

We  admit  that  miracles  are  outside  the  pale  of  com- 
mon experience,  but  we  deny  his  right  as  a  historian  to 
refuse,  in  advance,  ihe  examination  of  historical  testi- 
mony. The  church  challenges  comparison  of  the  his- 
torical evidence  for  miracles  with  the  evidence  for  any 
other  historical  event,  e.  g.,  Resurrection  of  Christ  and 
the  assassination  of  Julius  Csesar. 

v. — RESULTS     OF      CHRISTIANITY. 

The  results,  the  earliest  of  which  are  recorded  in  the 
scriptures  are  a  proof  of  its  divine  origin.  This  has  been 
considered  auxiliary  to  tlie  internal  evidence.  It  is  also 
akin  to  the  external.  The  system  does  not  pretend  to 
reveal  all  its  results  in  this  life,  some  are  to  be  revealed 
only  in  the  future  life. 

Mozley  regards  this  as  the  strongest  argument  for 
Christianity. 

[Consult  Pressenfe,  Martyrs  and  Apologists  ;  Farrar's 
Witness  ot  History  to  Christ.  Newman's  Grammar  of 
Assent.  Luthardt's  Fundamental  Truths  of  Christianity.] 


109 

We  may  examine  the  proof  in  three  lines  of  argu- 
ment. 

a.  The  extent  of  the  results. 

b.  The  certain  siijnificance  of  individual  results. 

c.  The  utter  disproportion  of  the  results  to  the  ter- 
restrial agencies  that  were  employed  in  hriiii^iug  them 
about. 

These  can  be  accounted  for  in  no  other  way  than  by 
extraordinary  inherent  power  in  Christianity  and  by 
divine  aid  and  origin. 

Each  of  these  ma}'  be  considered  with  rc-spixt  to 

(1.)  Facts  connected  witli  the  external  propagation 
and  prevalence  of  Christianity. 

(2.)  Facts  connected  with  intellectual  influence  of 
Christianity  on  the  world. 

(3.)  Facts  connected  with  moral  and  social  i'.itiuence. 

(1.)  Facts  concerning  propagailun. 

Trajan,  Pliny,  Tacitus  supplement  the  Acts  and 
Epistles.  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Epistle  of  Diognetus.  From  Britain  to  India, 
from  Pro-Consular  Africa,  tc  Scythia,  Christianity  spread 
within  ten  (10)  generations  and  over  much  of  this  region 
in  iive  (5.) 

The  significance  of  this  must  be  judged  in  connection 
with  the  shortness  of  the  time  and  the  opposition  encoun- 
tered, its  intensit}',  ingenuity  and  persistence.  The  cus- 
toms, literature,  political  condition  and  organization  of 
nations  were  all  arrayed  against  Christianity.  Roman 
toleration  did  not  allow  the  old  religion  to  be  supersed- 
ed— Christianity  insisted  on  superseding.  Followers  of 
Christ  were  vilified,  persecuted,  and  accused  of  treason, 
having  one  Jesus,  looking,  not  to  Cfesar.  The  Pride  and 
Enmity  of  the  natural  heart  was  an  obstacle,  even  if  the 
great  of  the  earth  had  promulgated  Christianity.  It  was 
not  so  with  Mohammedanism,  which  had  much  that 
pleased  the  natural  heart. 

The  endurance  and  changed  lives  of  Christians  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  all  men.  The  blood  of  the  mar- 
tyrs is  the  seed  of  the  Church,  "  semen  est  sangaie." 
We  can  see  now  how  everything  was  ready  for  Christi- 
anity, but  we  must  wonder  at  the  results  of  early 
Christianity.     The  world  was  ruled  by  one  sceptre,  the 


illO 

Roman,  and  under  one  cnltnre,  the  Greek.  A  crucified 
Jew  was  the  founder  of  Christianity.  Where  was  the 
human  adequacy  of  such  air  origin,  to  accomplish  such 
results. 

What  earthly  advantage  could  it  offer  as  an  induce- 
ment to  receive  it.  The  cross  was  the  emblem  of  a  slave's 
infamy,  this  was  held  up  to  challenge  the  love,  reverence, 
and  faith  of  men,  to  be  a  continual  reminder  of  the  Mas- 
ter, and  the  possible  experience  of  those  who  embraced 
Christianity.  Men  listened  to  the  preachers  of  the  Cross 
because  of  their  ]M)re  lives,  and  honored  tiieir  religion 
because  of  their  death.  Preaching  and  living  are  inade- 
quate to  such  results  without  divine  aid  (see  Barnes  on 
Evidences  of  Christianity — Lecture  4th.)  Newman  says: 
Christianity  was  to  accomf)lish  its  destiny  by  the  novel 
means  of  sanctity  and  suffering:  but  what  was  this  with- 
out the  might  of  God. 

(2.)  InteUcciual  Infuence  of  C]iristkmil)j. 

These  facts  are  less  palpable  in  themselves  and  more 
open  to  different  constructions.  Christianity  can  be 
shown  to  be  the  world's  intellectual  regenerator.  The 
Golden  Age  of  Greece  had  i)assed  centuries  before 
decline  and  corruption  had  begun  in  Rome.  For  some 
centuries  aflger  Christianity  began,  all  advanced  vigorous 
thinking  and  wilting  came  from  it.  It  furnished  new 
themes,  new  philosophy,  new  legislation  and  jurispru- 
dence, new  impulse  in  education,  especially  in  science, 
which  has  now  turned  against  its  own  foster  mother. 
Guizot,  "the  organizing  power  of  the  church  did  a  great 
deal  to  improve  the  organization  of  society.  It  made  the 
loftiest  ideas  the  common  property  of  humanity.  Ideas 
which  before  were  reserved  for  the  Platos".  Such  influ- 
ence cannot  have  come  from  any  sj'stem  of  ancient 
philosophy,  imposture,  or  enthusiasm.  It  must  have 
come  from  God. 

(3.)  Facts  connected  wilh  the  moral  and  social  influence  of 
Qhristianitfj. 

This  is  more  easily  traced.  We  know  the  condition 
of  man  when  Christianity  came,  when  the  true  idea  of 
humanity  arose,  what  woman  had  been  and  is  now  what 
labor  had  been  and  has  become  through  Christianity, 
also  how    lofty    and    uncompromising    the    morality    of 


Ill 


Christianity,  how  Christianity  exalts  and  refines  every 
virtue  the  world  had  known,  how  it  added  to  the  list  ; 
for  exanijde  meekness,  iuunility,  love,  benevolence  ;  how 
it  transformed  social,  civil  and  i)olitical  relations.  Can 
the  religion  which  from  the  first,  bec^an  to  work  such 
chanp^es  be  traced  to  Galilean  fishermen,  or  to  any  source 
but  God. 


CHRISTIAN  ETHICS 


EDITED    BY    THE   CLASS    OF    1879. 


CHRISTIAN    ETHICS. 


Apologetics  proves  that  Christianity  is  the  divinely 
originated  religion.  It  is  also  ethical.  Apologetics  is 
(1)  Historical  and  (2)  Philosophical.  (1.)  Christianity  is 
partly  a  system  of  religious  truths,  institutions  &c.,  i.  e. 
historical,  and  (2)  partly  philosophical,  since  the  ques- 
tions that  arise  stand  related  mainly  to  ethical,  meta- 
physical, and  natural  science. 

Christianit)j  as  an    Ethical  Religiov. 

Christian  Ethics  we  take  up  as  a  Biblical  study,  ob- 
taining facts  from  the  moral  character  of  Christianity 
partly  in  the  Scriptures  and  partly  in  the  results  of  the 
Christian  religion.  Christianity  is  not  a  philosophy  but 
a  religion.  What  do  its  moral  results  l^hovv  it  to  be  as 
a  religion  ?  What  is  Christian  society  ?  How  does  relig- 
ion propose  to  deal  with  human  society  to  make  it 
Christian  ?  Some  reduce  Christianity  to  mere'  morality, 
some  to  a  system  of  truth  or  doctrine;  it  is  more:  we 
are  to  look  at  Christianity  as  an  ethical  religion,  not  as  a 
system  of  morals. 

GENERAL    PRINCIPLES. 

First:  Morality  is  inseparably  connected  with  relig- 
ion. 

Second  :  Christian  morality  is  inseparably  connected 
with  the  Christian  religion. 

Third:  The  only  true,  complete  morality  is  the 
Christian  morality. 

Three  Preliminarn  qaesiions. 

1,  What  is  the  place  of  Ethics  in  Philosophy  ? 

2,  What  is  the  place  of  Christian  Ethics  in  relation 
to  theology  ? 

3,  What  is  the  place  of  Christian  Ethics  in  Philosoph- 
ical Ethics? 


I.    WHAT    IS  THE  PLACE  OP  ETHICS  IN   PHILOSOPHY  ? 

By  a  merely  nominal  definition,  Ethics  is  the  science 
of  the  moral. 

McCosh  "  The  science  of  the  hiws  of  man's  moral 
constitution." 

It  is  also  called  the  science  of  human  conduct. 

Porter:  "Science  of  human  duty." 

Wayland:  "  Science  of  moral  law." 

These  differences  arise  from  different  approaches  to 
the  subject. 

IVie  Subject  of  Ethics.— By  common  consent  it  is  man 
in  his  moral  nature  and  relations.  Notice  such  terms  as 
merit,  demerit,  ought,  obligation,  duty,  right,  wrong. 
Ethics  is  the  department  in  which  these  are  the  ruling 
ideas. 

Ought.  The  word  ought  introduces  the  mind  into  new 
regions  where  thematerialis  not  found.  All  materialistic 
philosophers  are  confronted  with  "  ought/'  "  right,"  &c. 
These  words  will  not  down  at  the  bidding  of  evolution- 
ists. We  use  Ethics  in  preference  to  moral  philosophy 
because  the  latter  word  is  ambiguous. 

Sidney  Smith  :  By  the  term  "  moral  pliilosophy  " 
is  popularly  understood.  Ethics.  But  the  term  moral 
philosophy  is  misleading  and  is  too  inclusive.  Moral 
philosophy  is  used  in  a  popular  sense  including  meta- 
physics, aesthetics  &c.,  and  second  in  a  proper  sense  as 
opposed  to  natural  philosophy. 

Ethics  is  a  more  felicitous  and  accurate  term.  From 
the  Greek,  eduot;  (moral  from  wos.)  "  Morals"  relates 
to  the  external.  Ethics  is  internal.  This  term  origi- 
nated with  the  Greeks.  AVhile  Ethics  hag  a  wide  sphere 
and  scope  of  its  own,  it  does  not  stand  alone.  It  is  re- 
lated— (1)  to  psychology  because  there  are  faculties  to  be 
considered,  (2)  to  nietaph3'sics  as  cause'  and  effect,  (3) 
to  political  and  social  science,  jurisprudence  and  po- 
litical economy. 

Some  of  the  topics  that  come  up  in  these  relations 
must  be  discussed. 

1.  The  nature  and  origin  of  moral  ideas. 

2.  Faculities  by  which  man  is  made  capable  of  moral 
action. 

3.  Relations  in  which  he  puts  forth  moral  action. 


4.  Impulses  bv  which  he  is  urged,  and  obligations 
impelling  or  holding  him  to  right  action.         * 

5.  Functions  of  conscience  in  reference  to  moral  ac- 
tions. 

6.  Nature  and  bounds  of  duty. 

7.  Results  to  character. 

8.  Nature  of  virtue. 

9.  Nature  of  the  supreme  and  secondary  good. 

The  treatment  of  these  themes  will  be  modified  ac- 
cording to  the  view  we  take  of  man  as  he  should  be  and 
as  he  is. 

Some  of  the  topics  relate  to  man  as  one  moral  l)eino' 
alone.  Others  in  liis  relations  to  superiors,  inferiors, 
equals,  &c. 

Philosophical  Ethics  discusses  man's  natural  charac- 
ter, relations,  obligations,  &c.,  as  reason  construes  them. 

Theological  Ethics  is  not  confined  to  this.  These 
are  onl\'  elementary. 

n.       THE  PLACE  OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  IN  RELATION  TO  CHRIS- 
TIAN THIiOLOGY. 

One  would  make  it  a  part  of  Historical  Theology, 
atiother,  of  Practical  Theology. 

Rothe  separates  Ethics  from  dogmatics;  makes 
dogmatics  a  branch  of  historical  Ethics  and  puts  Ethics 
in  speculative  theolog3\  As  to  the  assignmentof  Ethics 
to  practical  theology  we,  cannot  regard  it  a  complete  or 
correct  view  which  treats  of  Ethics  as  something  to  be 
done  in  distinction  from  something  to  be  believed. 

In  the  moral  life  the  why  and  hoio  determine  the  what. 
In  dealing  with  the  luhy  and  how  there  is  quite  as  much 
of  the  dogmatic  as  of  the  practical. 

Theological  science  is  divided  thus:  Exegetical,  His- 
torical, Systematic  and  Practical.  If  this  be  a  correct 
division  Ethics  belongs  to  the  third,  which  includes  dog- 
matic and  ethical  theolog3\  For  two  hundred  years 
didactic  and  ethical  theology  have  been  treated  sepa- 
rately for  the  most  part. 

Redemption  is  fully  realized  when  we  do  what  it  is 
designed  that  we  should.  Therefore  there  should  be  no 
separation  of  the  didactic  and  the  ethical.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  claimed,  and  rightly, that  there  shouldbeasepa- 


ration,  one,  being  God's  side  of  the  question  of  redemp- 
tion and  the  other  man's.  Doctrine  and  practice  how- 
ever may  be,  and  often  are,  too  widely  separated.  They 
have  a  reciprocal  relation  to  each  other. 

III.     WHAT  IS  THE  RELATION    OF  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  TO    PHIL- 
OSOPHICAL   ETHICS  ? 

Kahnis  :  "  Ethics  is  the  systematic  exhibition  of  Chris- 
tian morality." 

Martensen  :  "  The  science  of  the  moral  life,  deter- 
mined by  Christianity." 

Neander  :  "  That  science  which  develops  the  laws 
for  human  action  out  of  the  nature  of  Christianity." 

Christian  Ethics  points  man  to  the  fource  of  his  pow- 
er— God.  Philosophical  Ethics  points  man  to  what  he 
ought  to  do  of  himself,  by  reason.  These  two  should 
harmonize. 

Dorner :  "  Philosophical  Ethics  takes  its  starting 
point  in  the  first  creation  ;  man  as  he  was  before  the  fall. 
Christian  Ethics  in  the  new  creation;  man  as  restored  by 
grace." 

Where  shall  we  find  the  best  exhibition  of  Christianity 
as  an  ethical  religion?  In  Christ.  But  we  follow  God's 
order,  beginning  with  the  preliminary  exhibition  or 
preparation  for  it  in  the  patriarchal  and  Jewish  systems. 


ETHICS  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

No  lono;  inspection  of  O.  T.  is  necessary  to  show  that 
its  system  is  not  cast  in  scientific  form.  Moreover,  the  O. 
T,  mode  of  presentinor  things  is  different  from  tlie  N. 
T.  The  former  bears  resemblance  to  Semitic  and  Jewish 
types.  The  religions  system  of  the  O.  T.  is  evidently  pro- 
visional, prophetic,  and  preparatory,  not  permanent  and 
final;  so  the  mode  of  presenting  its  Ethics  is  different. 
That  may  be  tolerated  in  one  condition  of  things  which 
might  not  be  in  another.  Judaism  shows  itself  inferior  to 
Christianity  both  in  the  extent  and  perf>iCtion  of  the  re- 
sults wrought  out. 

Some  general  characteristics  of  the  ethical  systems  of  0.  T. 

a.  The  ethical  system  of  tlie  O.  T.  like  that  of  N.  T., 
is  presented  to  us  in,  with,  thrdugh,  by,  con- 
cerning,  the  religion  with  which  it  is  connected.  0.  T. 
knows  nothing  of  a  religion  vrithout  a  moralitv.  Hence 
the  irreligious  men  are  the  immoral  men  and  vice-  versa. 
Ps.  14  :  1 ;  10:4-11;  94  :  6,  7  ;  Gen.  18  :  19  ;  1  Sam.  15  : 
22;  Is.  1:11-17;  Hos.  6  :  7;  Jer.  7  :  9,  10  ;  Ps.  50  :8  ; 
Prov.  15  :  8. 

Through  the  union  of  morality  and  religion,  the  pre- 
dominant notions  of  relis^ion  are  brous^ht  to  bear  on  tlie 
moral. 

b.  It  is  consistent  with  this  mode  of  presenting  the 
subject  that  we  note  the  entire  absence  from  O.  T.  of 
the  specific,  abstract  terms  used  in  Philosophical  Ethics 
as  duty,  ought,  etc.  The.«je  are  part  of  the  religion 
of  O.  t. 

e.  It  is  nowhere  found,  but  always  assumed,  in  0.  T. 
that  man  has  a  moral  nature,  is  under  moral  obligation, 
and  that  he  knows  it,  and  should  live  to  secure  the  high- 
est good. 

"General  truths  fundamental  in  0.  T.  as  a  religious  and 
moral  system.. 

a.  The  life  and  power  of  0.  T.  are  found  in  its  con- 
ception of  God.  What  we  are  to  be,  is  shown  to  us  in 
God.     The  motives  are  drawn   from    him  ;  God's   unity 


in  opposition  to  polytheism,  his  spirituality  in  opposition 
to  materialism,  his  personality  in  opposition  to  panthe- 
ism ;  these  had  no  little  power  in  making  O.  T.  mo- 
rality. 

Neander :  "  The  apprehension  of  God  came  out  in 
Judaism  as  it  could  not  in  surrounding  religions."  Its 
reolizoiion  of  God's  holiness  is  a  more  important  point. 
When  we  combine  with  these  his  omnipotence,  omni- 
science, omnipresence,  we  have  a  faith  which  will  be 
morally  effective  as  none  other  could  be. 

b.  Its  teaching^  of  the  dignity  of  individual  human 
nature.  Man  was  made  in"  the  image  of  God.  This 
fact  gives  solemnity  to  his  actions.  It  is  not  necesary 
that,  his  likeness  be  sharply  defined. 

The  dignity  of  man  is  shown,  by  the  place  assigned 
to  him  in  the  order  of  creation,  and  by  the  sharp  distinction 
between  him  and  the  other  animals.  Man  has  dominion 
given  him  over  other  creatures.  After  the  deluge  man's 
relations  are  defined  and  ratified  again.  There  is  a  re- 
peated prohibition  of  man's  forgetting  his  superiority  to 
other  animals.  On  the  other  hand  he  is  taught  to  sep- 
arate himself  more  and  more  from  the  brutes,  and  perfect 
his  fellowship  with  God. 

c.  The  brotherhood  of  man  less  perfectl}'  seen  in  O. 
T.  than  in  N.  T.,  and  yet  more  prominent  there  than  in 
any  other  system.  The  Bible  represents  us  as  brethren 
in  one  race  ;  not  in  many.  1.  The  O.  T,  ascribes  the 
origin  of  the  whole  race  to  one  pair,  and  connects  pro- 
pagation after  the  deluge  with  a  single  family.  2.  The 
duty  of  sympathy  and  charity  is  based  not  only  on  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  but  also  on  the  brotherhood  of  man 
both  in  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  Gen.  9:  4-8;  Is. 
58:  7.  3.  The  reach  of  God's  redeeming  purpose  em- 
braces all  families,  as  seen  in  the  promise  to  Abraham, 
prophecies  concerning  Gentiles,  Is.  56:  6. 

d.  The  organization  of  humanity  is  of  God  in  all  its 
essential  relations  and  institutions,  and  the  maintenance 
of  this  organization  is  God's  deep  concern,  that  it  may 
accomplish  his  purpose.  And  God  is  concerned  in  the 
enjoyment  by  each  individual  of  the  advantage  for  which 
the  organization  is  instituted.  The  family  is  the  unit  of 
this  organization  and  must  be  kept  pure. 


9 

e.  Moral  responsibility  extends  also  to  man's  relations 
to  the  inferior  creation.  God  gave  man  dominion  over 
the  creatnres  but  not  to  nse  it  nnlawrnlly.  It  is  not 
insured  to  him  permanently.  Man's  dominion  is  Ijound- 
ecl  by  the  riohts  of  God  and  of  nature. 

/.  Man's  treatment  and  use  of  himself,  whether  phys- 
ical or  spiritual,  comes  within  the  sphere  of  morals.  The 
O.  T.  protect^  man  from  his  evil  self,  and  demands  the 
best  care  and  culture  of  himself  Sins  a,i:;ainst  the  body 
are  denounced,  as  also  s[)iritaal  sins,  sucli  as  indolence, 
I  pride,  etc. 

;         r/.  God's  concern  for  man's  moral  life  is  shown  under 

i  the  O.  T.  economy,  by  provision  for  man's   culture  and 

i  education.     Morality  is  not  left   witliout  culture.     Left 

to  bimself  man   mistakes    natural   impulse    for    natural 

law,  the  ao^reeable  for  the  obligatory,  present  e.\citement 

for  permanent  good. 

Our  nature  receives  no  new  elements.  God  helps 
us  by  instruction  as  to  what  man's  relations  are,  and  by 
what  the  0.  T.  does  for  refining  and  elevating  man.  Tic? 
helps  to  regain  lost  purity,  quickens  moral  sensibilities. 
A  personal  ruler  is  put  in  j)lace  or  impersonal  law.  Man's 
conscience  is  a  monitor  for  good  and  evil,  to  reward  and 
punish. 

h.  Motives  to  the  performance  of  duty  are  made 
effective  by  new  and  peculiar  sanctions  in  the  O.  T, 
Man  is  not  attracted  to  right  or  deterred  from  wrong 
simply  by  conscience.  Right  action  secures  God's  ap- 
probation as  well  as  the  approbation  of  conscience. 
Man  is  taught  that  the  memory  of  God  is  ever  enduring. 
The  brotherhood  of  man  is  well  brought  out  in  the 
O.  T,,  Ijnt  immortality  of  the  soul  is  more  vague  than 
in  the  JN",  T,  By  the  0.  T.  men  are  taught  to  expect 
retribution  and  rewards  licre.,  hence  it  has  been  called  a 
mercenary  system.  The  O.  T.  makes  more  than  the 
New,  of  present  exhibitions  of  divine  approval  and  con- 
demnation, e.  g.,  Job,  Eccl.  Men  who  are  conscious  of 
God's  presence  feel  the  truth,  so  that  the  perplexities  of 
Job  and  Eccl.  are  removed  by  implicit  confidence  in 
God,  going  beyond  the  present  to  the  future,  appreciat- 
ing God's  spiritual  training  beyond  the  temporal  gifts. 
While  the  O.  T,  encourages   expectation,  the  sign  is  al- 


10 

ways  less  than  the  tiling  signified.  Thy  favor  is  life. 
Even  in  the  N.  T.  there  is  pron)isc  for  tlie  life  that  now 
is,  as  well  as  for  that  wliich  is  to  come,  while  in  theO.  T. 
Balaam  desires  to  die  the  death  of  the  righteous. 

i.  The  quality  of  O.  T.  morality  is  displayed  by  the 
standard  of  exi,'ellence  it  sets  up.  Three  (3)  things  no- 
ticeable ;  first  the  intrinsic  excellence,  second,  the  degree 
of  conformit}^  required  of  us,  third,  the  fitness  of  the 
standard  itseif  to  promote  and  secure  this  required  con- 
formity. 

The  stajidard  is  the  character  of  God  and  his  holi- 
ness, the  degiee  required  i-<  exact  correspondence,  "  Be 
ye  holy,  for  T  am  holy."  There  is  unparalleled  attrac- 
tiveness as  well  as  surpassing  glory  in  this  stand  ird. 
This  is  the  most  desirable  excellence.  Nothing  higher 
can  be  conceived  of.  If  you  lower  the  standard  you 
lower  its  attractive  power. 

Objectioks  to  Old  Testament  Morality. 

These  are  in  a  great  variety  of  forms.  Some  cour- 
teous, some  offensive.  Some  disparage  the  O.  T.  mo- 
rality in  order  to  exalt  the  New.  Some  are  philosoph- 
ical or  speculative. 

Mill :  The  Old  Testament  system  of  morality  is  bar- 
barous, fit  only  for  savages. 

I.    FIRST  objection. 

The  God  of  the  O,  T.  is  represented  as  partial,  fickle, 
hateful,  revengeful  and  otherwise  morally  unworthy. 

Bolingbrokc  says,  it  is  blasphemy  to  assert  that  the 
O.  T.  writers  were  inspired,  when  they  attribute  such 
tilings  to  Divinity  as  would  disgrace  humanity.  The 
conclusion  that  such  men  draw  is,  there  is  a  God,  but 
I  cannot  conceive  of  liim  thus;  or  if  this  is  the  best 
that  can  be  conceived  of,  then  for  me  there  is  no  God. 

Answer,  a.  The  representation  which  is  largely 
predominant  in  O.  T.,  by  common  consent,  is  that  God 
is  infinitely  exalted,  and  absolutely  perfect  in  moral 
excellence.  The  objector  concedes  this.  If  this  be  so, 
we  ought  to  be  controlled  in  our  interpretation  of 
doubtful  passages  by  this  fact.  We  are  not  to  assume 
that  these  writers  deliberately  falsify  their  other  state- 
ments.    We  must  harmonize  if  possible. 


11 

b.  This  liarmoniziiicr  iiiteri>retatioM  must  take  into 
account  the  context  as  well  as  the  contents  of  each  pas- 
sage, the  idioms  oflanirnage  and  the  characteristics  of 
the  oriental  mind.  Anthropomorphic  style  of  literature 
renders  sncli  roi-resentation  necessary.  ^  When  we  have 
allowed  for  these  we  claim  that  the  ohjection  falls. 
Instances.  God  repents,  Gen.  G  :  5-7.' 
Is  licklc,  Gen.  8  :  21. 

His  dealings  with  Phai-oah,  E.v.  7-14,  (chs.) 
(See  Trench's  llnlsean  Lectures,  p.  90,  Ilanna's  Bainp- 
ton  Lectures,  p.  88.) 

God's  anger  allayed  by  appeals  to  His  vanity — Ex. 
32  :9-seq.  :  "Num.  16  :  20-seq.";  Num.  14  :  22,  2-3. 

God  lickle  with  Balaam,  Num.  22  ch. 

Punishes  people  for  others'  sins,  2d  Sam.  chs.  21,  24  ; 
Deceives  Ahab,  1  Kings  22  ;  Deceives  the  prophet,  Ezek. 
14 :  9. 

ir.   SECOND   OBJECTION. 

The  principle  of  human  brotherhood  receives  only  a 
very  parti:d  and  inconsistent  treatment  in  O,  T. 

Bolingbroke  urges  that  the  particularism  by  which 
the  Jews  were  taught  to  regard  themselves  as  God's  i)ecu- 
liar  ]ieople,  took  them  out  of  obligation  to  the  rest  of 
mankind.     Ans. 

a.  This  objection  proves  too  much.  It  destroys  all 
belief  in  providential  distinctions  which  all  men  must 
observe  and  God  is  constantly  making. 

h.  The  objection  mistakes  or  mis-states  the  nature, 
ground,  and  aim  of  the  particularism  of  the  Hebrew 
system.  There  is  one  God  of  all  the  earth,  who  has  pur- 
poses of  mercy  toward  all,  though  not  in  the  same  way. 
The  Hebrews  are  represented  in  O.  T.  as  brethren  in 
one  human  race,  made  to  ditibr  lor  a  time  and  for  a  pur- 
pose that  good  ma}-  result  to  all;  the  favors  that  distin- 
guish the  Hebrews  at  tiie  same  time  increase  their  res])on- 
sibility.  This  closer  relation  to  God  is  not  a  meritorious 
relation  and  the  fiivors  they  enjoy  are  a  means  to  an  end. 
Exclusiveness  has  a  double  object,  (1)  Defensive;  to  pro- 
tect them  from  contamination,  protecting  and  developing 
His  instrumentalities  on  earth  ;  and  (2)  the  securing  more 
full  and  effectual  application  of  God's    instrumentalities 


12 

to  tlie  whole  hnniaii  race.  The  wall  of  partition  is  to  be 
thrown  down. 

There  is  however  a  way  open  for  the  recognition  of 
human  brotlierhood. 

From  the  Pentatench.  Lev.  19:  33.  The  Jews  were 
to  treat  strangers  kindly.  The  doors  of  the  Jewish 
sanctnary  were  ijjnardediy  opened,  (i.  e.  to  proselytes.) 

E.x.  23  :  9.  The>-  shall  not  oppress  the  stranger. 

Num.  15  :  15.  As  ye  are,  so  shall  the  stranger  be  be- 
fore the  Lord. 

Dent.  10:  18.     The  Lord  loveth  tlie  stranger. 

From  the   Prophets. 

Micah  4  :  1,  2.     Many  nations  shall  come. 

Is.  56  :  7.  God's  house  a  iiouse  of  prayer  for  all 
people. 

Is.  66:  20.  God's  glory  to  be  declared  among  the 
gentiles. 

Is.  60.     Access  to  the  gentiles. 

These  show  that  in  the  end,  a  richer  result  will  be  to 
the  whole  world  from  this  temporary  separation. 

III.       THIRD  OBJECTION. 

There  is  a  divine  endorsement  of  character  not  ap- 
proved by  our  moral  sense. 

Ans.  a.  Divine  approbation  in  many  of  these  cases 
where  God's  approbation  ise.xpressed,  is  explicitly  based 
on  and  restricted  to,  certain  specified  aspects  of  these 
characters. 

b.  In  no  case  is  Divine  approbation  extended  to  those 
qualities  which  provoke  our  moral  censure. 

e.  In  some  cases  Divine  disap{)robation  is  pronounced 
upon  those  points  of  character  which  we  denounce,  and 
the  sins  visited  with  severe  judgments. 

d.  In  no  case  should  we  \)e  ivith  God  but  in  every 
case  against  God  if  we  withhold  our  censure  from  these 
sins. 

Dr.  Ilessey  :  "  The  Christian  rejects  the  pleading  that 
will  not  distinguish  between  the  whole  character,  and 
special  acts." 

IV.       FOURTH     OBJECTION. 

The  Old  Testament  represents  God  as  expressly  re- 
quiring, in  some  instances,  acts  condemned  by  our  moral 


13 

sense,  e.  g.  :  Abnihuni  is  commanded  to  sacrifice  Isaac ; 
Moses  deceives  Phiiroali  ;  the  i)orro\vin2:  of  jewelry  mid 
raiment  from  the  Egyptians;  Ilosea's  marriage  ;  false- 
hood of  midwives  of  Egypt. 

Reply:  a.  In  each  instance  it  belongs  to  exegesis  to 
determine  the  meaning  of  the  record.  Did  Ilosea  be- 
come an  adulterer?  Did  the  Israelites  borrow  of  the 
Egyptians  ? 

h.  In  the  petition  of  Moses  to  Pharaoh,  there  is  no 
evidence  of  deception.  As  the  first  step  in  a  series  of 
dealings  a  moderate  request  is  made  to  allow  them  to  go 
out  to  sacrifice.     Other  steps  in  God's  purpose  follow? 

c.  Abraham's  call  to  sacrifice  his  son.  Some  say  it 
had  been  common  for  parents  to  sacrifice  their  children, 
so  that  God  tempts  Abraham  in  this  way,  calling  him  to 
do  a  wicked  thing.  God  did  not  tempt  but  tried  Abraham. 
It  was  to  prove  his  trust  in  God,  making  the  clioice  be- 
tween parental  affection  and  loyalty  to  God.  He  is  to 
choose  in  the  midst  of  extraordinary  experiences  that 
led  him  to  trust  in  God.  In  dealing  with  God  he  liad 
learned  from  the  first  not  to  count  the  cost  of  obedience. 
He  left  his  kindred  not  knowing  whither  lie  went.  It 
was  the  same  now. 

V.       FIFTH    OBJECTION. 

The  Old  Testament  represents  God  as  expressly  re- 
quiring courses  of  action  toward  nations  and  races  that 
are  condemned  by  our  moral  sense. 

Deut.  23  :  6.  Thou  shalt  not  seek  their  peace  nor 
their  prosperity  all  thy  days  forever — in  regard  to  the  Ca- 
naanites. 

Bolingbroke:  "Nothing  can  be  conceived  more  un- 
worthy of  an  all  perfect  being  than  the  manner  in  which 
the  people  were  taken  from  Egypt  and  the  way  they  got 
possession  of  Canaan." 

But  was  such  treatment  of  hostile  tribes  intrinsically 
immoral  ?  Had  God  no  riglit  to  dispossess  the  Canaan- 
ites  and  give  the  land  to  Israel,  no  right  to  guide  Israel 
to  the  land  of  promise,  no  riglit  to  protect  them  in  the 
possession  of  it,  no  right  to  visit  these  idolatrous  nations 
for  their  sins  and  that  in  His  own  way,  no  right  to  pro- 
tect the  world  from  the  influence  of  their  sins? 


14 

Suppose  no  sncb.  issue  bo  made  conceriiiiio;  the  Divine 
rigiit,  what  shall  we  say  as  to  the  fitness  of  the  method. 
He  might  have  sent  a  pestilence. 

Several  things  are  to  he  considered,    (Lev.  18  :  3,  24.) 

a.  Aggressive  war  was  permitted  and  prescribed  only 
at  certain  specified  points  and  for  certain  specified  ob- 
jects. Otherwise  it  was  merely  defensive.  They  were 
left  to  human  methods  unless  God  interposed  by  miracle. 

War  for  war's  sake  was  never  encouraged.  For  this 
reason  David  was  denied  the  honor  of  building  the  tem- 
ple. ().  These  wars  were  not  waged  at  the  instigation 
or  for  tlie  indulgence  of  ferocious  passions;  but  they 
were  in  the  interest  of  justice,  present  and  future  holi- 
ness to  Israel  and  others.  Doing  evil  that  good  may 
come,  says  the  objector. 

c.  As  to  the  methods  and  extent  of  application,  the 
people  are  not  left  to  their  own  discretion  or  caprice  in 
interpreting  a  commission.  They  were  punished  if  they 
fell  short  of  full  oljcdience.  It  was  not  evil  to  protect 
the  present  and  future  holiness  of  Israel  by  a  course  to 
which  they  were  strictly  held.  These  cases  were  never 
allowed  to  be  made  precedents.  They  were  protected 
while  executing  their  commission. 

Vr.      SIXTH  OBJECTION. 

The  O.  T.  endorses  expressions  of  individual  feeling 
towards  one's  fellow-man  that  are  offensive  to  moral 
iudgments,  especiallvthe  imprecatory  Psalms,  about  fifty 
'in  number.  See  Ps.  35  :  4,  5,  6,  8,  26;  55  :  10,  16,  24; 
58  :  7-12  ;  59  :  6,  7,  11-14  ;  69  :  23-29 ;  109  :  6-20  ;  137  : 
7-9.  [See  Bib.  Sac.  Vol.  I.  13, 19,  Ilanna's  Bampt.  Lects. 
1863,  McLean's  Unity  of  the  Moral  Law.] 

a.  These  are  not  the  unauthorized  malice  of  private 
vindictiveness  or  passion,  but  inspired  utterances  which 
we  must  seek  to  harmonize. 

h.  These  do  contain  expressions  of  human  convictions 
and  emotions,  inclignation  at  wrong,  sense  ofjustice,  and 
desire  to  vindicate  right.     Are  these  wrong? 

c.  The  Psalmists,  in  these  utterances,  are  not  merely 
the  representatives  of  private  history  and  experience; 
they  are  more.  Their  cause  is  God's.  Opposition  to  it 
rightly  arouses  their  indignation  and  sense  ofjustice. 


15 

d.  These  utterances  in  ijenerul  roist  on  divine  denun- 
ciations and  predictions  with  res|)ect  to  evil. 

e.  They  do  reveal  the  spiiit  of  a  dispsnsation  in  which 
the  realit}',  necessity-,  and  meanin2^,  of  law  and  justice 
had  been  far  more  i  e:  fectly  disclosed  than  grace.  Not 
appropriate  to  the  N.  T. 

VII.       SEVENTH  OBJECTION. 

The  sanctions  by  whicli  the  0.  T.  commends  and  en- 
forces what  it  requires  are  mercenary  and  therefore 
inferior  if  not  immoral. 

Borm<;broke  :  "  God  purchased  as  it  were,  the  obe- 
dience of  His  people." 

The  book  of  Prov.  is  charged  witli  motives  of  pru- 
di'nce  instead  of  love.      But 

Munscher  says  the  human  agent  regards  the  present 
rather  than  the  future. 

Dillman  saj-s  the  temporal  leads  man  to  the  spiritual 
and  invisible.     Partial  Ans.  as  before. 

1.  Present  experiences  were  never  designed  nor  found 
to  be  the  exact  exponent  of  God's  esteem. 

2.  The  favor  signified  was  always  more  momentous 
than  tlie  sign  itself. 

Objection :  sanctions  like  these,  embodying  good 
and  ill,  are  inferior. 

a.  When  it  is  said  tliese  sanctions  are  inferior  we 
need  have  no  debate  with  the  objector,  if  it  be  conceded 
that  abstract  recommendations  and  precepts  are  made 
effective  by  sanctions.  Moral  sanctions  may  be  reinforced 
by  legal,  without  being  superseded  or  necessarily  weak- 
ened by  them.     A  law  not  sanctioned  is  but  advice. 

At  that  stage  ot  revelation  sanctions  drawn  from  a 
future  life  were  imperfectly  available.  The '  objection 
must  be  against  the  constitution  of  human  nature,  or  else 
against  God  for  having  kept  back  the  knowledge  of  a 
future  life. 

b.  As  to  the  demoralizing  tendency  of  this  appeal  to 
secular  rewards  and  penalties,  we  should  be  obliged  to 
admit  the  objection  if  certain  things  were  true,  for  in- 
stance if  it  were  true  that  the  practice  of  virtue  was 
commended  merely  for  the  sake  of  gain.  This  is  not 
true.     The  appeal  is  chiefly   to  God's  approbation,  and 


16 

not  to  present  2:niii.  That  the  inferior  motives  were  more 
palpahle  than  the  superior,  wonlcl  be  a  reason  for  their 
em[)Ioyment,  not  the  contrary.  God  allows  the  wicked 
to  prosper  and  chastens  His  own  for  a  purpose  of  prood, 
a  hio"her  law  overruling.  National  and  individual  disas- 
ters, while  indicatino;  to  the  heathen  the  impotence  of  his 
gods,  to  Israel  would  indicate  the  reality  of  his  God. 

Vril.       EIGHTH  OBJECTION. 

The  0.  T.  contains  positive  precepts  and  indirect  re- 
quirements and  permissions  tliat  are  in  conflict  with  the 
teachings  of  the  N.  T.  and  high  morality,  e.  g.  the  sanc- 
tity of  marriage  and  monogamy,  yet  allows  polygamy  and 
easy  divorce.  The  brotherhood  of  man,  yet  admits  sla- 
very ;  retaliation  is  sanctioned.  Thus,  the  0.  T.  cen- 
sures and  sanctions  the  same  things. 

a.  It  is  a  signal  merit  of  O.  T.  morality  that  it  deals 
with  the  world  as  it  is,  existing  conditions  being  ac- 
cepted as  in  a  certain  sense  limiting  t!ie  immediate  ob- 
jects of  the  moral  system. 

/).  Under  the  0.  T.  dispensation  God  does  not  deal 
either  with  existing  defects,  or  positive  evils,  in  a  way  to 
efiect  an  immediate  revolution.  lie  does  not  employ 
supernatural  means  of  conversion,  but  deals  with  all  evil 
as  in  a  moral  system,  in  which  force  is  out  of  place.  The 
eradication  of  evil  is  the  ultimate  result,  though  gradual. 
The  objection,  would  show  that  God's  wisdom  is  inierior 
to  that  of  tlie  objectors. 

c.  The  legislation  of  the  O.  T.  in  regard  to  polj-gamy, 
divorce,  and  slavery  is  rerjulatife.  Each  is  found  existing, 
not  at  once,  always,  and  everywhere  prohibited,  but  reg- 
ulated. The  removal  is  left  to  the  slow  working  of  the 
moral  dispensation.  Thus  monogamy  gradually  gained 
almost  entire  ascendency  in  Israel.  So  also  divorce  is 
restricted.  Slavery  in  Israel,  as  compared  with  slavery 
in  other  nations,  although  enlightened,  as  Greece  and 
Rome,  is  less  degrading  and  oppresiive.  A  bondman 
was  a  servant,  not  mere  merchandise.  Under  the  Mosaic 
law  slavery  is  lightened  and  regulated,  as  far  as  it  is  per- 
mitted at  all.  Among  the  Jews  only  the  Essenes  and 
Therapeutre  put  away  slavery  before  Christ. 

Retaliation,  as  an  individual  passion,  is  restrained. 
The   law  puts  limits  on    the  avenger.     It  is   immoral  if 


17 

God  may  not  regard  society  as  it  is,  and  adapt  His  ways 
to  its  present  state  :  if  temporary  toleration  of  evil  is  im- 
moral. The  O.  T.  does  not  purport  to  exhibit  the  ulti- 
mate or  complete  religion,  neither  should  we  expect  in 
it  the  ultimate  morality. 


18 


ETHICS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


I.  Same  General  Characteristics  and  Truths.         , 
Many  things  true  of  the  O.  T.  Dispensation  are  also 
true  of  the  INew. 

1.  Tliere  is  tiie  same  connection  between  Morality 
and  Religion. 

The  union  is  vital.  Change  in  lieart  is  necessary  to 
a  pei'fect  morality. 

2.  Same  lack  of  abstract  terms. 

3.  Same  quiet  assumption  in  N.  T.  of  the  existence 
in  man  of  the  essential  elements  of  moial  ethics. 

The  moral  elements  of  N.  T.  Dispensation  are  more 
conspicuous  than  those  of  O.  T.  The  ceremonial  is  done 
uvvay.  N".  T.  Dispensation  is  for  the  world,  and  not  for 
the  theocracy  alone.     It  is  more  distinctly  ethical. 

IL  Same  fandojnental   Truths. 

(a.)  The  conception  of  God  is  central,  as  in  0.  T., 
only  more  powerful.  The  question,  What  is  God? 
answered  more  fully.  His  moral  perfections  brought 
out  tiiore  clearly,  ('ontrast  Sinai  with  Calvary.  Law 
with  Love. 

(6.)  The  dignity  ascribed  to  human  nature;  this  dig- 
nity e.xalted  by  the  work  of  Christ.  He  died  to  redeem 
it.  If  the  image  in  which  it  was  created  furnished  one 
standard,  the  price  paid  for  it  gives  another,  and  union 
of  the  human  and  divine  in  Christ  as  the  perfect  man  gives 
a  third. 

The  whole  work  of  Christ  sets  the  highest  value  on 
human  nature. 

(c.)  The  Brotherhood  of  Men.  Duties  before  dimly 
discerned  now  come  out  more  vividly.  K  T.  not  only 
does  not  cancel  or  obscure  the  O.  T.  teachings  on  this 
point,  but  adds  and  enforces.  Christ's  answer  to  the 
question,  "Who  is  my  neighbor?  teaches  a  broader  view 
of  the  rehitious  of  men. 


19 

Paul's  teaehiui!:  the  suinc,  "  God  lins  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations,"  Acts  17:  26.  Christ's  redemptive 
work  not  for  a  nmltitnde  of  races  but  for  the  one  race. 

{(I.)  The  Organization  of  Ilnnuinity. 

This  brongl'.t  ont  more  clearly  by  N.  T.  0.  7.  deals 
mainly  with  the  Jews.  The  history,  instrnction,  disci- 
[iline  and  religion  were  national,  the  new  dispensation 
can  no  longer  be  national  when  the  transient  has  effected 
its  object.  The  organization  of  humanity  is  now  seen 
to  be  from  God,  and  is  brought  under  the  precepts  or 
monidiiig  spirit  of  the  N.  T. 

(c.)  Inferior  Ci'eation. 

Tlie  IST.  T.  calls  attention  to  the  use  of  the  world  which 
shall  not  be  an  abuse  of  it.  Care  of  self  enjoined  in  N. 
T.  We  are  to  developo  every  organ  and  faculty,  and  to 
use  them  for  proper  purposes.  The  N.  T.  enhances  the 
dignity  of  every  part  of  human  nature,  by  what  Christ 
planned  and  expended  for  the  whole.  Specific  appeals 
to  Christians.  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of 
God."     I.  Cor.  3:  17. 

"  What  ?  know  ye  not  that  vour  body  is  the  temple  of 
the  Holy  Ghost?"  '  I.  Cor.  G:  10. 

(/.)  Progi'essive  enlightenment  and  elevation  of  men. 

The  O.  T.  system  was  preparatory.  In  the  N.  T. 
education  and  progress  are  i)romineiit.  The  IsT.  T.  sys- 
tem not  thus  prepai-atory  :  not  to  give  place  to  a  new 
system?  it  is  \\\<i jiri'il  system.  The  moral  results  of  the 
Gospel  arc  reached  by  education  from  infancy  to  maturity. 
As  in  the  individual,  so  in  the  world,  there  is  a  gradual 
appreciation  of  and  instruction  in  morality. 

(//.)  The  Sanctions  of  N.  T.  system  are  more  generally 
spiritual  and  less  temporal  than  those  of  the  O.  T,  There 
is  less  appeal  to  the  present.  "  Having  promise  of  the 
life  that  now  is  and  that  which  is  to  come,"  I,  Tim.  4  :  8. 

The  ]Sr.  T.  holds  us  to  faithfulness  in  the  present,  and 
makes  God's  favor  the  best  reward  and  iiighest  aim. 
Immortality  is  brought  to  liglit  in  the  Gospel.  The  N, 
T.  finds  the  sanction  in  God's  estimate  of  human  action 
and  the  signs  by  whicli  God  chose  to  express  this.  It 
rises  above  the  0.  T,  in  making  the  rewards  unseen  and 
eternal  in  a  greater  measure.  Even  in  the  O.  T.  there 
are  appeals  to  the  future.  Isaiah  is  better  understood  when 
quoted  by  Paul. 


20 

(h.)  The  Standard  is  the  same,  viz  :  Holiness. 

We  are  to  be  like  God.  To  prevent  discouragement 
in  acliieving  this  effect  the  JS.  T.  brings  in  the  life  and 
example  of  Christ  to  help  lis.  Perfect  holiness  lias  ap- 
peared on  earth,  and  the  power  of  His  helping  hand  is 
offered  to  us. 

PECULIAKITIES  OF  N.   T.  MORALITY. 

The  nature  of  the  moral  life  may  appear  from  three 
points  of  view.  (1.)  What  is  demanded  of  a  moral  life? 
Duty. 

(2.)  AVhat  should  mora!  lite  and  action  be  in  quality 
and  character  ? 

Virtuous. 

(3.)  What  should  moral  life  aim  at  as  its  dominant 
object  ? 

The  supreme  good. 

Hence  the  three  cardinal  ideas  of  Ethics,  duty,  vir- 
tue and  the  virtues,  and  the  supreme  good. 

Three  questions  arise. 

1.  Do  the  revelations  of  the  N".  T.  add  anything  to 
the  extent  or  exactness  of  man's  knowledge  of  duty  ? 

2.  Does  the  N.  T.  teach  anything  new  in  regard  to 
the  power  by  which  or  the  subjective  conditions  in  which 
duty  is  done. 

3.  Does  the  N.T.  modify  our  conception  of  the  supreme 
good  ?  i.  e.  of  the  results  aimed  at,  anticipated  and  at- 
tained where  Christian  virtue  exists  and  Christian  duty 
done. 

Dutii. — A  religions  moralit}'  is  more  complete  and 
effective  than  a  non-religious  moralit3\  Man  needs  to 
be  under  personal  influence. 

A  morality  based  on  revealed  religion  will  be  higher 
than  one  based  on  a  revelation  of  nature,  and  a  morality 
based  on  God's  last  and  highest  revelations  will  be  higher 
than  one  based  on  preparatory  revelations.  We  should 
therefore  expect  the  morality  of  the  N.  T.  to  include  all 
that  natural  religion,  philosophy  and  the    O.  T.  include. 

A.  As  compared  with  the  O.  T.  Dispensation,  Chris- 
tianity makes  less  of  the  legal  aspects  of  duty,  and  lays 
more  stress  on  its  self-evidencing  nature.  Christianity 
attempts  no   metaphysical  explanations   of  duty.-    It  is 


21 

pnictical :  its  objc-et  is  to  sliow  man  what  lieliai  to  do  so 
as  to  bci^t  secure  his  tloin<2j  it. 

It  never  ai\:2:nes  the  (pie^tion  of  llie  eonloiniity  of  the 
dnty  to  man's  natnreor  his  rehitions.  The  N.  T.  annomices 
its  requirernents  as  beinf;  so  transi)arently  rii^^lit  and  rea- 
sonable as  not  to  need  argnment.  God's  \v\\\  is  not  stated 
80  mneh  in  a  le^a)  ^Yay  as  in  the  O.  T.  Duties  are  pre- 
sented as  self-justifyinij.  Aro^nrnents  are  sometimes  used 
to  remove  misa|)preliension  or  ovei'come  prejudices. 

Two  extremes  are  to  be  avoided.  One  wouhl  exhibit 
dntv  as  tlie  mere  product  of  God's  aibitrary  will,  the 
other  finds  tl)e  approvini;  source  ofdutyin  the  conscience 
of  man  himself.  It  deals  witli  right  as  abstract  and  dis- 
regards God.  N.  T.  goes  to  neitlier  extreme.  What 
God  commands  commends  itself.  Right  reason  and 
conscience  approve  it.  More  use  is  made  of  simple  au- 
thority in  O.  T.  ;  less  aj.peal  to  the  understanding. 
Duties  of  the  N.  T.  justify  themselves  as  soon  as  the  facts 
of  it  are  seen,  e.  g.  love  and  obedience  to  Christ  are  evi- 
dently duties  as  soon  as  the  facts  in  regaid  to  Christ  are 
known.  How  does  Cli'ristianify  lift  man  up  to  this  plane 
of  duty?  By  increasing  our  knowledge  of  Him;  teach- 
ing us  moi-e  full_y  what  is  His  will,  rliilosophicid  Ethics 
must  rely  upon  the  validity  of  moral  ideas  and  hence 
iniluences  only  the  few,  because  they  only  can  apprehend 
them.  The  N.  T,  makes  God  best  known,  so  exhibiting 
His  nature  and  character  as  to  render  the  duties  enjoined 
self-evidencing. 

B.  The  N.  T.  rearranges  human  relations,  readjusts 
duty  by  connecting  all  with  its  new  relations  of  God. 

We  have  not  a  multitude  of  new  verbal  statements 
in  the  N.  T.,  but  of  faets — things  God  has  done,  e.  g.  In- 
carnation. Christ  acts  as  and  for  God.  Sometliing 
more  specific  is  revealed,  viz.,  that  the  world  was  created 
by  God  through  the  Logos.  The  greatest  advance  is 
made  in  the  manifestation  of  the  love  of  God. 

C.  Into  the  substance  of  duty  the  N.  T.  introduces  a 
new  simplicity  and  unity,  by  making  the  great  all-em- 
bracing duty  to  be  love,  and  the  obedience  of  love. 

O.  T.  being  a  dispensation  of  law — presented  duty 
in  detail,  but  in  N.  T.  the  oneness  of  all  duty  is  better 
understood.     Our   love   must  be  appropriate  and  com- 


22 

mensiiriite  with  the  object.  Toward  God  our  duty  is 
supi'omc  love.  Under  O.  T.  man  could  not  understand 
the  fullness  of  this  claim  because  that  love  v/as  not  yet 
fully  revealed.  Likewise  our  duty  to  our  fellow-men  is 
more  clearly  revealed.  Deut.  vi :  5.  cf  Matt,  xxii  :  36, 
40;  Mk.  XII :  28,  31.  Our  Lord  makes  this  duty  more 
self-justifying  and  efficient  than  it  was  before.  Instead 
of  going:  into  detail  IST.  T.  says  "  love  is  the  fultilling  of 
the  lawV' 

D.  To  those  duties  which  result  from  man's  original 
constitution  and  his  permanent  relations  as  man,  Ciiris- 
tiaiiit}-  adds  a  grou[)  of  duties  wliicli  grow  out  of  man's 
actual  moral  state,  and  what  God  lias  done  for  that  moral 
state. 

N.  T.  tells  us  we  are  sinners.  New  d-uties  come  with 
the  appearing  of  Christ.  These  duties  are  contingent  in 
a  sense;  not  growing  out  of  our  nature — not  absolute 
duties.  They  are  now  universal — for  all  men  wliom  God 
has  in  view.  Thej'  have  also  become  primary  duties  in 
their  importance.  The  items  and  order  of  duty  differ 
from  those  for  a  holy  race.  So  the  items  and  order  of  duty 
for  a  race  which  Christ  came  to  save,  will  differ  from 
those  for  n  race  whom  he  did  n(>t  come  to  save. 
Two  things  modify  the  duty,  viz.  :  the  state  in  which  we 
have  come  and  what  God  has  done  for  us  in  that  state 
c.  g.  Repentance  is  u  duty  of  fallen  man,  no  matter  what 
God  has  done  or  not  done.  O'he  system  of  theoretical 
Ethics  miglit  point  repentance  as  a  hy|)0thetical  duty,  i. 
e.  if  'A  man  sins,  he  should  repent,  but  in  Scripture  it  is 
a  universal  duty. 

Faith  does  not  become  a  primary  duty  in  an  evangel- 
ical sense  until  God  commands  it.  That  God  could  for- 
give and  redeem  was  for  lliro  to  reveal.  As  soon  as  this 
revelation  is  made  in  Christ,  a  nevr  form  of  faith  becoivies 
obligatory,  not  mere  confidence  in  God.  Our  duty  is  to 
e.xercise  a  most  specific  faith  in  what  God  commands 
through  His  Son,  All  the  new  objects,  institutions  and 
agencies  that  come  in  the  train  of  this  redeeming  work 
become  in  turn  new  centres  of  obligation,  e.  g.  ministry, 
sacraments  &c.  of  the  church. 

They  are  secondary  and  contingent  yet  real  and  im- 
perative. Thoy  may  properly  be  called  Evangelical  duties 


23 

because  they  come  with  tlie  Ghi(l-ti(lii)ii:.s.  They  first  find 
their  full  recognition  in  the  N.  T.  thoui'h  shadowed  in 
the  O.  T. 

Among  Evangelical  duties  the  N.  T.  makes  faith  a 
necessary  antecedent  to  the  sicceptable  performance  of 
any  and  all  man's  general  duties.  We  mean  faith  in  a 
Christian  sense  Faith  not  merely  retrospectively  hut 
prospectively  indispensable.  Rom.  14  :  23, ''  Whatsoever 
is  not  of  faith  is  sin."  Paul  means  by  faith  more  than 
mere  confidence  in  God.  More  than  a  clear  conscience 
that  what  we  do  will  please  God.  According  to  the  N. 
T.  the  spring  of  all  right  action  is  faith.  The  sinner  is 
not  in  a  right  relation  to  God  until  he  believes  fully 
according  to  the  light  given  him  Christian  Etliics  pre- 
supposes a  Christian  man.  The  primary  duty  therefore 
is  faith. 

Virtue. — The  idea  of  virtue  contains  two  elements. 
One  is  made  prominent  in  the  non-ethical  idea,  the  other 
in  its  philosojihical  idea.  In  the  first,  virtue  is  pi-esented 
as  an  activity  or  power,  antzTj — virtus,  manliness,  vigor, 
power,  energy.  This  continued  to  be  their  meaning 
until  philosophy  applied  them  to  tiioral  acts. 

In  the  other  phase  virtue  is  that  state  of  inner  excel- 
lence which  alone  makes  the  former  external  excellence 
[)Ossible.  Man's  competence  to  do  the  work  of  life  con- 
sists in  a  right  inner  condition.  This  is  something  be- 
longing to  the  dispositions.  The  harmony  of  the  inner 
nature  with  the  right,  the  true  and  the  good  is  first  nec- 
essary. Moral  worthiness  did  not  enter  into  the  heathen 
idea  of  virtue. 

The  O.  T.  furnishes  no  discussion  of  what  this  virtue 
is,  like  philosophy.  Socrates  found  all  good  in  knowl- 
edge and  evil  in  ignorance  and  error.  Hence  all  wisdom 
is  virtue. 

Plato  makes  virtue  to  be  pleasure  in  the  good,  and 
love  to  the  good,  because  the  good  is  the  truly  beautiful 
and  to  be  loved  on  that  account.  It  showed  itself  in  four 
forms,  wisdom,  courage,  temperance,  justice.  These  are 
the  cardinal  virtues. 

Aristotle  found  good  in  the  harmony  and  just  propor- 
tion of  things,  hence  virtue  is  due  regard  to  this  har- 
mony.    More  especially,  virtue  is  the  true  mean  between 


24 

all  extreniGs.  It  has  emotional  or  intoUoetnal  forms. 
ZjiiD  (Stoic)  foiinJ  virtue  in  livini^  in  contbraiity  to 
nature.     Ilippines^  will  be  the  result, 

Epiciiriis  pot  happiness  in  the  forej^ round.  The  keen- 
est enjoyment  oF  the  present  is  virtue.  Individual  en- 
joyment is  tiio  gootl  aimed  at  and  the  highest  u;ood.  To 
the  lower  classes  this  would  he  soniethin<i:  sensual,  to  the 
wise  m m,  somethini^  retiiied.  The  N.  T.  found  these 
ideas  of  virtue  o.Kistiu«:.  It  does  not  enter  upon  any 
deduition  or  analysis  oF  virtue.  It  tells  wiiat  man  is  to 
do  and  to  bo.  Its  main  care  is  that  man  should  adopt 
and  practice  faith,  hope  and  charity. 

Tiie  word  aozv/]  occurs  five  times  in  tlic  !N".  T.  Four 
times  translated  virtue,  Phil.  4:9;  2  Peter  1:  3-5,  used 
twice  in  verse  5  ;   1  Peter  2  :  9,  translated  "  praises." 

Erymolotric  il  idea  is  that  which  ajives  man  his  worth 
or  value.  Moral  excellence  is  also  expressed  l>y  Sr/.acoo'jvrj. 
Eph.  5:9;  4  :  21 ;  Luke  1 :  75  ;  Rom.  6  :  13,  rendered 
"righteousness." 

Also  by  b.]'tiOTrjq  and  (lyaOcorrWrj,  I  Thes.  3  :  13  ;  2  Cor. 
7:1;  R  )m.  15  :  14 ;  Eph.  5:9;  vjcr-^ica  and  yaniaiw.  arc 
also  used.  While  the  JST.  T.  uses  no  one  term  but  many 
to  express  this  idea  of  moral  excellence,  it  is  not  to  be 
thought  that  it  is  vague  in  its  idea  of  virtue.  C;ill  to 
mind  the  exterior  ideas  of  virtue  and  you  tind  both  rec- 
ognized in  N.  T.  virtue. 
Christian    Virtue. 

A.  Christan  virtue  and  virtues  have  and  must  have  a 
supernatural  origin. 

They  arc  not  found  in  man  as  he  is.  Ho  has  neither 
the  state  nor  the  power  of  producing  tliem.  No  new 
faculties  are  needed.  The  foundation  is  in  his  nature, 
but  since  the  fall  man  has  failed  to  reach  this  virtue. 
He  lacks  both  the  disposition  and  tlie  power  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  virtue.  There  is  no  provision  in  nature  to 
regain  this  lost  power. 

.  This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  whicli  addresses 
man  as  he  is  in  a  fallen  state.  It  declares  that  emanci- 
pation and  regeneration  are  both  necessary,  and  cannot 
be  effected  within  the  enslaved  and  vitiated  nature.  Con- 
science supplies  the  motives  but  not  the  power.  It 
merely  approves  and  disapproves. 


25 

B.  While  OhrisTian  virtue  and  virtues  are  super- 
natural in  their  origin,  the  N.  T.  represents  them  as 
natural  to  the  new  man. 

Til 6}'  are  not  merely  accredited  to  him  hut  are  liis, 
helonging  to  his  new  nature.  They  distinguish  iiim  as 
a  new  man.  He  is  not  a  mere  figure  on  wliicli  God  dis- 
plays the  costume  and  drapery  oi"  virtue.  God  works  in 
him,  but  he  does  his  own  will,  impelled  from  within  and 
not  merely  from  without.  It  is  a  moral  dispositioti, 
wrought  by  the  Spirit,  more  than  mere  natural  endow- 
ments, from  which  this  virtue  proceeds. 

C.  In  answer  to  the  question— what  element  in  moral 
condition  or  action  makes  or  proves  them  right?  the 
K.  T.  answer  is,  conformity  to  the  will  of  God. 

The  K.  T.  does  not  ask  why  this  is  right.  The  aim 
of  Scripture  is  to  secure  a  practical  religious  life.  It  does 
not  enter  into  the  metaphj^sical,  philosophical  or  psycho- 
logical questions  in  regard  to  these  things.  En  the  line 
of  religious  revelation  we  can  see  why  it  is,  God  being 
what  he  is  declared  to  be  in  the  Bible,  that  conform- 
ity to  the  will  of  God  is  the  standard  of  moral  action. 
It  is  not  the  mere  product  of  that  will  which  is  the 
ground  of  right,  but  the  intrinsic  rightness  thereof  Two 
practical  reasons  for  this  standard: 

{a)  To  make  right  influential  over  man  he  needs  to 
have  its  attractions  and  constraints  multiplied. 

[b)  If  not  only  abstract  but  personal,  if  manifold  and 
not  single,  if  concurrent  and  not  separate,  the  power 
drawing  us  to  goodness  is  greatly  increased. 

If  there  were  no  taints  of  corruption  within  ns,  the 
mere  abstract  command  would  be  sufficient. 

Our  moral  relations  are  personal,  to  God  and  not 
merely  to  right  and  wrong.  The  right  is  intrinsically 
right,  conformitv  to  the  w'ill  of  God,  and  profitable ;  e. 
g.  thankfulness  is  right  in  itself  when  a  favor  is  received, 
and  right  according  to  the  will  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus. 
(Eph.  5 :  20.) 

(c)  This  mode  of  presenting  virtue  is  a  needed  and 
powerful  corrective  of  man's  ungodliness. 

Man  is  naturally  averse  to  the  will  of  God  and  has  a 
tendency  to  resist  it.  This  tendency  needs  to  be  power- 
fully counteracted. 


26 

D.  Christian  virtue  not  being  created  by  full  develop- 
ment, perfects  itself  in  the  advancing  activities  and 
deeper  experiences  of  the  Christian  life.  The  germs  of 
virtue  onh"  are  planted  by  a  supernatural  power.  Growth 
in  Christian  virtue  is  secured  by  the  use  of  what  we 
have,  and  by  the  help  of  God.  Hence  some  writers 
speak  of  a  means  ot  virtue,  i.  e.,  those  acts  by  which 
virtue  is  guarded  from  hindrances,  established  against 
them,  and  advanced  in  its  inner  growth.  They  do  not 
mean  that  virtue  can  be  originated  by  these  •'  means." 

That  which  is  sanctification  in  the  theological  phrase 
is.  in  ethical  phrase,  the  developing  and  perfecting  of 
Christian  virtue.  If  it  were  developed  and  perfect  at 
lirst,  there  would  be  no  need  of  sanctification. 

N.  T.  expressions  indicating  tliis  growth  : 
Gal.  5  :  25.   Walk  in  the  Spirit." 
1  Cor.  1 :  2.  Called  to  be  saints. 

Positive  and  negative  expressions. 
1  Peter  2  :  24.  Being  dead  to  sin  should  live'  unto  right- 
eousness. 
Rou).  12:2.  JSTot  conformed   but  transformed. 
Matt.  16  :  24.  Deny  thyself,  take  up  cross. 
Luke  14:  33.  Forsake  all,  be  my  disciple. 
Gal.  5  :  24.  Crucify  the  flesh.  Col.  3  :  5. 
Eph.  4  :  24.  Put  on  the  new  man.  Col.  3  ;  10. 
Rom.  13  :  14.  Put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Eph.  4  :  13,  15.  Growing  up  into  a  perfect  man. 
Col.  2:6,  7.  Built  up  in  Christ. 

1  Cor.  15  :  58.  Abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord. 
Col.  3:12;   Heb.  12  :  14  ;  1  Peter  1  :  13. 

Agency. 
1  Thes.  5  :  23.    Sanctified  by  God. 
1  Cor.  1 :  2.  Sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus. 

1  Peter  1  :  2.  Sanctified  by  the  Spirit. 
John  17:  17.  Sanctified  by  Truth. 

Results. 
Rom.  6  :  22.  Fruit  unto  holiness. 
Rom.  6  :  19.  Yield  your  members  unto  holiness. 
Rom.  8  :  10.  Life  because  of  righteousness. 

2  Cor.  4  :  16.  Renewed  day  by  day. 

Palmer.  "All  divine  training  is  fruitless  unless  I  train 
myself."  Li  some  Ethical  treatises  this  is  called  "As- 
cetics," in  others  "  Discipline." 


27 

E.  When  most  effective  as  a  power,  and  most  per- 
fected as  a  moral  state,  Christian  virtue  is;  not  meritor- 
ious in  the  Romish  sense.  Our  work  is  so  dependent 
on  God,t]iat  tiiere  is  no  ground  for  a  demand  of  reward. 

For  Romish  doctrine  see  82nd  Canon  of  6th  Session 
Council  of  Trent.  "Deserve  eternal  life,  increase  of 
grace,  &c." 

Calvin,  Institutes,  chap.  xv.  Book  iii;  Turretin,  topic 
17,  question  5. 

South,  Sermon  25th,  lays  down  four  conditions  of 
merit. 

(1)  That  the  action  be  not  due. 

(2)  That  that  action  may  add  something  to  the  state 
of  him  of  whom  it  is  to  merit. 

(3)  That  the  action  and  reward  be  of  equal  value. 

(4)  That  the  action  be  done  by  the  man's  sole  power, 
without  help  of  iiim  of  whom  he  is  to  merit. 

In  all  these  points  Christian  virtue  can  merit  nothing. 

F.  Christian  virtue  where  it  exists  cannot  show  itself 
merely  in  general  excellence,  but  must  appear  in  the 
form  of  specific  virtues,  and  these  when  apparently 
identical  with  certa'in  natural  virtues  have  a  quality 
which  is  peculiarly  their  own. 

Christian  life  is  always  seen  as  concrete.  Its  objects 
are  definite,  its  conditions  positive,  so  that  the  phenom- 
ena must  be  specific.  Individual  acts  must  be  seen  to  be 
right. 

Two  inferences  from  individual  right  acts: 

(1)  With,  regard  to  the  individual  disposition  from 
which  the  act  springs. 

(2)  With  regard  to  the  general  state  of  the  soul  of 
which  this  is  one  of  the  dispositions. 

Christian  virtue  will  then  be  seen  and  known  mainly 
in  the  Christian  virtues. 

We  must  avoid  several  errors  : 

(1)  That  of  individualizing  and  isolating  them  too 
much. 

(2)  That  of  seeking  and  finding  them  in  outward 
action  rather  than  in  the  disposition. 

(3)  That  of  judging  them  by  the  test  of  civil  law,  or 
public  opinion. 

Remember, 


28 

(a)  That  the  virtues  have  a  central  principle  which 
gives  them  unitj  and  each  lias  a  strong  affinity  for  every 
other. 

(/;)  That  tiiey  belong  to  the  disposition  more  thaii 
the  visibly  active  life. 

(c)  That  the  test  of  all  other  dispositions  must  be 
man's  disposition  toward  God. 

Plato's  classification  was  accepted  by  the  Christian 
Fathers,  and  passed  into  many  modern  systems.  He 
makes  the  cardinal  virtues  wisdom,  justice,  fortitude, 
temperance.  We  can't  put  wisdom  in  the  first  place 
even  if  we  mean  by  wisdom  a  moral  excellence. 

Ambrose  and  Augustine  added  faith,  hope  and  char- 
ity to  Plato's  four,  making  seven.  Thus  justice  seemed 
to  be  done  to  philosophy  and  Scripture,  and  the  sacred 
number  seven  had  its  signification. 

Ambrose  and  Augustine  put  charity  ti'rst  instead  of 
wisdom,  but  the  scheme  is  arbitrary  and  based  on  a 
wrong  principle. 

Calvin  based  his  analysis  on  Titus  2:  12.  He  makes 
the  virtues  sobriety,  justice,  piety. 

Sobriety  regulating  all  belonging  to  self. 

Justice,  all  belonging  to  our  teilow  men. 

Piety  referring  to  God. 

Schleiermacher's :  wisdom,  love,  prudence,  perse- 
verance. 

Wiittke'sissimple,  logical  and  complete.  Faithfulness, 
justice,  temperance  and  courage. 

These  he  treats  as  phases  of  love,  in  different  rela- 
tions and  toward  different  objects.  Their  mutual  af- 
finity is  strong. 

Faithfalness. — Tnavc^,  in  a  broad  sense.  It  resembles 
God's  self-consistent  and  unvarying  faithfulness  to  Him- 
self In  man  the  love  that  God  implants  is  true  to  self. 
Love  true  to  self  looking  toward  God,  is  faith  in  God  ; 
toward  men  it  will  show  itself  as  self-consistent  fidelit}'. 

Perseverance,  patience,  earnestness,  fixedness  of  char- 
acter, sincerity,  simplicity,  and  constancy  are  manifes- 
tations of  it. 

Justice.  In  this  scheme  this  is  construed  as  a  uniform 
readiness  to  respect  and  concede  the  rights  of  each  and 
all  with  whom  we  have  to  do.  Its  counterpart  in  God  is 
rectitude.     It  reaches  far  beyond  calculating  equity. 


29 

Gratitude  is  justice  toward  God  as  bouutiful  and 
gracious.  To  be  ungrateful  is  to  be  unjust.  Compas- 
sion toward  needy  men  is  anotlier  form  of  justice,  [t 
would  owe  uo  man  anything.  This  leaves  no  place  for 
works  of  supererogation,  Rom.  13  :  7,  8.  It  is  the  golden 
rule  which  is  the  Christian  law  of  justice. 

Temperance. — Is  a  due  regulation  of  self  and  involves 
in  its  broadest  sense  a  just  reputatioii  of  self.  Keeping 
oneself  within  right  moral  bounds.  Itincludes^wcP/'o<T!Jv;^ 
plus  ip/>ar£;«.  awif.  well  balanced,  healthful  min(l ;  ayx. 
keeping  under  control.  In  its  first  aspect  temperance 
will  appear  to  be  negative  or  prohibitory,  restraining 
and  keeping  back.  But  this  restraint  has  a  most  positive 
result.  It  forbids  excess  in  order  to  secure  the  best  use 
of  one's  powers  and  energies.  It  regulates  our  feelings 
and  desires,  moderating  one's  estimate  of  himself;  hence 
produces  humility,  which  is  the  regulation  of  our  judg- 
ment with  regard  to  ourselves. 

Humility  is  preeminently  a  Christian  virtue.  The 
old  tendency  was  to  exa.ij^gerate  one's  own  worth.  Sin 
in  self  and  grace  in  God's  dealing  are  factors  which 
ancient  philosophy  never  admitted.  This  teni|)erance 
will  also  show  itself  in  self-renunciation  and  content- 
ment. Pride,  arrogance  and  undue  self-assertion  will 
have  no  place. 

Courage. — Not  di/o/^sf'a,  Greek  bravery  or  courage,  but 
■Kap^rr^ata^  confidence,  boldness  and  hopefulness,  which 
impels  to  and  sustains  in  the  conflicts  of  the  Christian 
life.  Boldness  in  anticipation  of  death  and  judgment. 
Its  basis  can  never  be  a  consciousness  of  personal  worth 
or  ability.  Its  basis  is  hope  and  faith  in  God,  thus  dif- 
fering from  all  natural  courage.  Nothing  in  life  or 
death  can  daunt  him  whose  faith  is  staid  in  God. 

These  particular  virtues  are  to  be  looked  for  as  signs 
of  the  general  virtue.  These  are  to  be  developed  as 
individual  virtues,  studied  and  nourished  with  proper 
motives;  yet  Christian  virtue  has  its  unity  and  all  go 
hand  in  hand.  We  are  to  know  the  ground  on  which 
each  rests  and  to  see  that  all  are  found  in  our  character. 

In  Christian  Ethics  Love  is  the  central  and  radical 
virtue  as  well  as  the  central  duty,  not  one  among  co-ordi- 
nate virtues:  so  faith  may  be  called  the  primary  virtue 
as  it  is  the  primary  duty. 


30  . 

G.  What  has  Christian  Ethics  to  say  of  the  natural 
virtues,  such  as  parental  and  filial  affection,  generosit}-, 
honest3%  &c.,  found  in  unsurpassed  excellence  in  some 
who  have  never  experienced  the  work  of  grace  in  the 
heart  ? 

Christianity  neither  denies  that  they  are  virtues  nor 
that  they  are  natural,  n(ir  that  they  are  largely  in  actual 
existence  among  men,  and  in  some  degree  and  in  some 
form  and  measure  all  but  universally  present  in  human 
life  and  character.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  say  that 
all  virtue  is  the  fruit  of  regeneration.  If  either  class  are 
natural  it  is  those  which  have  their  root  in  man's  con- 
stitution and  depend  not  on  a  second  work,  regeneration. 

Chalmer?  :  "  God's  word  is  not  in  conflict  with  the 
consciousness  of  men.  There  are  then  natural  virtues. 
There  is  a  social  and  a  divine  standard  of  morality." 
(Institutes  Am.  Ed.  Vol.  1,  pp.  2  and  3.) 

The  precepts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  show 
that  natural  virtues  and  dispositions  are  enjoined,  as  hav- 
ing a  basis  in  nature  and  not  necessarily  in  regeneration 
Gen.  4  :  7,  2  :  7 ;   Acts,  10  :  34  ;  Rom.  2  :  14.  ^ 

What  has  the  Bible  to  say  of  the  presence  and  worth 
of  these  in  unrenewed  men  ?  Under  what  condition  and 
to  what  extent  does  the  Bible  deny  to  iniin  the  right  to 
congratulate  himself  on  the  possession  and  manifestation 
of  these  virtues,  and  to  content  himself  therewith  apart 
from  regeneration. 

2.  Man's  disposition  is  to  regard  only  two  parties  as 
concerned  in  the  existence  and  manifestation  of  virtues, 
viz.  himself  and  his  neighbor.  The  Bible  recognizes 
three  parties.  God  is  the  third,  1  Cor.  10  :  31,  Whether 
therefore  ye  eat  or  drink,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God. 
See  also  Col.  3:  22,  23;  Eph.  6:  6.  Tttus  2:10,  Ser- 
vants, masters  and  God  are  concerned.  1  Tim.  5  :  8,  If 
any  provide  not  for  his  own,  &c.,  he  is  worse  than  an  in- 
fidel. Rom.  13  :  1-5  civic  loyalty  Eph.  6  :  1,  the  Obedi- 
ence of  children.  Eph.  5  :  22,  Obedience  of  wives.  We 
see  that  in  all  relations,  God  the  third  party  is  recognized. 
In  all  or  any  of  the  natural  virtues,  even  when  justice 
has  been  fully  done  so  far  as  two  of  the  parties  are  con- 
cerned, it  is  not  perfect  unless  it  has  taken  account  of 
the  third,  i.  e.  God. 


31 

1  Cor,  13:  3,  charity  without  godliness  is  not  recog- 
nized. Phil.  4:8,  Sincerity  as  a  mere  impulse  is  not 
enough. 

3.  We  may  get  the  N.  T.'s  estimate  of  the  natural 
virtues  by  examining  the  epithets  and  ijhrases  by  ^vhich  it 
describes  character  and  indicates  the  ground  of  its  judg- 
ment. 

One  group  of  these  so  often  found  in  the  N.  T.  is: — 
aapxcxoQ  (pw/^cxoi:  Tivzunarcxoi;.  Sometimes  all  of  these  and 
sometimes  onlv  two  are  brought  into  contrast.  1  Cor. 
2  :  12.  3:4;  Gal.  6:1;  Rom.  7  :  14  ;  Jas.  3  :  15  ;  Jude 
19. 

The  third,  Trvsy/zar^pfoc,  is  always  and  only  approved — 
the  others  always  and  only  condemned.  The  first  two 
are  substantially  identical  morally,  though  not  psycho- 
logically; the  ruling  principle  being  within  the  man 
and  not  from  God,  as  in  the  third.  These  termsare  used 
differently  in  the  N.  T.  Greek  from  their  classic  use. 
Ascendancy  and  control  does  not  belong  to  that  part  of 
our  nature,  the  <r«o^,  even  when  pure.  The  (f'oxrj  has 
still  greater  control  but  no  absolute  and  supreme  right 
even  in  fallen  man.  The  natural  virtues  spring  from  this 
higher  nature  the  {['ox-fj — but  impulse,  reason  and  con- 
science are  alike  amenable  to  the  law  of  God,  andcannot 
have  commetidation  unless  controlled  by  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

(a.)  So  far  forth  as  they  spring  from  man's  original, 
unvitiated  constitution  they  are  appropriate  virtues. 

(b.)  So  far  as  they  have  respect  to  their  proper  objects, 
they  are  right. 

(c.)  So  far  as  the  sanction  of  conscience,  as  God's  rep- 
resentative is  regarded,  they  are  commended. 

(d.)  So  far  as  they  are  rooted  in  and  spring  from  a 
right  moral  disposition,  they  are  endorsed  and  com- 
mended. But  they  are  censured  so  far  forth  as  cherished 
i'nd  manifested  without  regard  to  God.  So  far  as  man 
relies  on  his  own  judgment  and  impulses.  A  life  that 
shall  please  God  and  satisfy  us  must  proceed  from  a  di- 
vine principle. 

The  Supreme  Good. — Does  the  N.  T.  modify  our  view  of 
the  supreme  good  to  be  aimed  at,  anticipated  and  attained? 


32 

To  the  Brahmins  and  Buddhists,  it  is  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  individual  beino;  and  absorption  in  the  uni- 
versal being. 

To  the  ancient  Greeks,  the  doctrines  of  God  and  fate  so 
baffled  their  aspirations  and  endeavors  that  the  suprenoe 
good  was  never  known.  They  were  subject  to  the  impulses 
and  caprice  of  too  many  gods  and  they  and  their  gods  alike 
were  liable  to  be  crossed  in  all  their  plans  by  unknown 
decrees  of  fate.  Socrates  made  wisdom  the  supreme  good. 
Plato,  harmony,  Aristotle,  soundness  and  symmetry  of 
self  in  all  its  activities.  Epicurus,  happiness.  The  Stoics, 
conformity  to  nature,  including  reason.  Kant,  the  union 
of  happiness  with  virtue.  Througli  this  we  get  an  idea 
of  God  and  immortality. 

Schleiermacher,  the  complete  mastery  of  nature  or  the 
interpretation  of  nature  by  reason.  Hegel's  system  in- 
cludes no  Ethics.  Spirioza  admits  of  no  moral  element 
and  hence  precludes  anything  but  physical  Ethics. 

The  Christian  view  of  the  supreme  good  is  best  giveji 
by  Augustine  and  Aquinas. 

Augustine — return  to  God  and  reunion  with  God  by 
likeness  to  himself 

Thos.  Aquinas — that  absolutely  perfect  life  of  the 
rational  creature  found  in  fellowship  witli  God. 

Schmidt — moral  principle  introduced  and  made  real 
in  the  world  of  realities.  Shaping  of  the  world  around 
us  in  harmony  with  the  divine  will  and  divine  law  ;  our 
will  acting  in  conformit}'  with  the  divine  will.  This  is 
an  improvement  on  Schleiermacher. 

Wiittke,  twofold  definition. 

Formal  and  material. 

Formal,  defining  it  by  that  in  which  it  appears. 

Material,  by  that  of  which  it  consists. 

Formal  def. — It  is  the  highest  perfection  of  his  rational 
personality,  i.  e.  the  perfect  exliibition  of  his  likeness  to 
God,  or  the  complete  agreement  of  the  reality  of  the  en- 
tire human  life  with  the  will  of  God. 

Material  def. — The  actual  fellowship  of  life  with  God 
which  secures  the  outward  appearance. 

Remarks. — (1.)  This  conception  of  the  supreme  good 
commends  itself  by  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  the  end 
proposed.  Nothing  higher  can  be  conceived  of  than 
likeness  to  God  and  fellowship  with  him. 


33 

(2.)  Tlie  end  tlms  proposed  to  ns,  pliiiiily  is  and  lias 
been  an  end  with  God — viz.,  our  fellowsliip  of  life  with 
hiniseif.  That  which  we  are  to  seek,  he  has  been  seek- 
in,o\  He  sought  it  in  creation,  much  more  in  regenera- 
tion, 

(3.)  The  supreme  good  thus  conceived  of  combines 
two  things  of  great  importance  : 

(a.)  The  highestincitement  to  aspiration  and  endeavor 
on  our  own  part,  with  (b)  encouragement  of  help  from 
him  upon  whom  our  success  depends.  To  have  chosen 
this  is  to  have  been  prompted  by  God,  because  no  man 
of  himself  as[)ires  to  this.  God  will  not  disappoint  his 
own  prompting. 

(4.)  This  conception  includes  and  provides  for  all  sub- 
ordinate forms  of  good.  This  is  what  none  of  the  other 
conceptions  did.  It  is  the  only  certain  guardntee  of 
wisdom,  for  in  union  with  God  we  find  the  highest  wis- 
dom. It  insures  constant  happiness  of  the  highest  type. 
"Ye  shall  be  as  gods  knowing  good  and  evil"  i.s  onlv 
realized  thus. 

(5.)  This  supreme  good  is  not  exhibited  as  something 
to  be  desired  and  hoped  for  as  the  final  attainment  of  a 
distant  future  but  as  something  with  which  a  right  moral 
life  begins  ;  to  possess  it,  makes  duty  and  virtue  possible. 
2  Peter  1:4.     "  Partakers  of  the  divine  nature." 

The  Motive  Poaver  of  Christianity. 

We  must  now  consider  the  working  force  of  Chris- 
tianity. What  provision  does  it  make  for  calling  into 
play  man's  moral  power?  Does  Christianity  hold  be- 
fore us  anything  better  than  the  best  philosopln-?  Does 
it  give  promise  and  prospect  of  attaining  something  more 
than  we  could  otherwise  ?  The  motive  power  of  Chris- 
tianity is  being  more  and  more  considered  by  the  best 
thinkers.  See^Blakie's  "Four  Phases  of  Morals  ;"  Prin- 
cipal Sharp,  "  Studies  on  Poetry  and  Philosophy."  He 
sa3's,  what  is  the  dynamic  power  in  the  moral  life? 
Calderwood's  "Handbook  of  Moral  Philosophy"  ap- 
proaches the  same  subject  from  the  &ide  of  philosophy. 

The  practical  problem  is  to  restore  the  moral  power 
which  we  have  lost.  What  motive  power  does  Chris- 
tianity supply  which  shall  make  duty,  virtue  and  the 
supreme  good  more  than  barren  ideas? 


34 

A.  The  ambiguity  of  the  word  motive  leads  us  to 
indicate  its  sense  as  used  by  us. 

(1)  It  belongs  to  every  conception  of  moral  action 
and  life  that  the  moving  power  shall  dwell  and  act  with- 
in man's  own  nature. 

The  term  motive  can  be  applied  only  in  a  secondary 
sense  to  anything  exterior  to  the  man  himself,  e.  g.,  gold. 

Prof.  Calderwood  :  "  A  motive  is  an  internal  force 
which  moves  and  excites -the  mind  toward  a  single  def- 
inite action.'' 

(2)  In  every  intelligent  agent  the  power  thus  moving 
him  consists  of  two  elements: 

(«)  The  views  which  he  takes,  and,  [b)  The  dispo- 
sitions or  the  judgments  and  dispositions.  Dispositions 
include  desires  and  affections.  The  dispositions  are 
non-rational,  acting  by  impulse.  The  judgments  are 
rational,  supplying  lioth  impulse  and  regulation.  They 
respect  truth  as  truth,  and  recognize  it  in  its  relations  to 
us  as  a  rule  of  life.  These  two  motive  powers  may  con- 
cur or  conflict.  When  they  conflict,  the  control  and 
decision  must  belong  to  the  higlier  and  rational  ele- 
ment, the  judgment.  The  dispositions  cannot  be  trusted 
to  regulate  themselves. 

B.  The  motive  power  of  Christianity  must  be  sought 
on  the  one  hand  in  tlie  convictions,  beliefs  and  knowl- 
edge which  it  gives  to  us  to  be  motives,  and  which  it 
makes  the  rule  of  life:  on  the  other  hand,  it  will  be 
found  partlj'  in  the  dispositions  which  it  develops  to- 
wards its  centi-al  objects,  and  through  these  toward  all 
other  related  objects.  It  cannot  be  found  in  either,  ex- 
clusive of  the  others.  Neither  can  it  be  found  in  en- 
lightenment only;  consequently  those  systems  which 
work  only  through  excited  sensibilities  are  at  feinlt. 

C.  The  rational  motives  which  are  distinctive  of 
Christianity,  and  which  give  it  power  and  effectiveness, 
are  mainly  those  which  gather  about  its  revelation  of  the 
nature,  character,  relations  and  purposes  of  God,  es- 
pecially in  Christ. 

Our  knowledge  of  secondary  relations  and  duties 
stand  in  the  most  vital  connection  to  these  tacts  and 
truths.  This  \sihe  power  to  regulate  us  above  all  others. 
Secondary  duties  are  not  disparaged  when  subordinated 
to  these  higher  duties. 


35 

T).  The  ratioiiiil  motive  power  by  which  Christi;mitv 
seeks  to  acconiplisli  its  results, is  found  in  the  view  wliich 
it  gives,  the  belief  wliich  it  creates,  the  knowledge  wliich 
it  imparts,  of  the  love  of  God. 

This  does  not  disparage  the  knowledge  of  hia  other 
attributes.  It  does  not  draw  us  from  any  other  tluty, 
nor  is  there  les:^  regulative  than  motive  power  in  these 
facts  concerning  the  love  of  God.  Nothing  so  secures 
fidelity,  vigilance,  perseverance.  Nothing  so  exalts  virtue 
as  this  love. 

E.  The  motive  object  in  which  God's  love  is  found 
most  fully  embodied  and  expressed,  is  the  person  and 
work  of  Jesus  Christ. 

A  motive  object  is  that  toward  which  the  mind  is 
called  to  act.  Christianity  presents  this  motive  object  in 
three  ways  as  adai)ted  to  inllue'nce  us. 

(1)  Asa  new  test  to  show  us  what  we  are  ourselves — 
sinners. 

(2)  Asa  ncin  point  of  departure  in  our  whole  religious 
and  moral  life.  We  see  what  we  have  not  been,  and 
what  we  ought  to  be;  and  from  the  time  we  take  Christ 
we  begin  again,  or  if  rejecting  him  go  on  to  worse. 

(3)  As  a  new  source  and  reservoir  of  motive  power,  ex- 
citing our  afteetions. 

Illustrations. 

[a)  A  man  sees  himself  as  never  before  when  Christ 
is  fully  before  him..  Ilis  power  to  love  the  truth,  his 
inclination  and  willingness  to  follow  it  are  then  tested. 

(6)  Christ  becomes  a  point  of  departure,  heavenward 
or  hell  ward,  according  as  they  receive  or  reject  Him. 

(e)  There  is  no  more  vital,  practical,  winning  truth 
than  this.  All  the  rights  and  powers  of  God  are  brought 
so  near  us,  and  to  bear  upon  us  in  Christ.  There  can 
be  nothing  more  done  to  move  us. 

F.  Christianity  traces  the  new  moral  and  religious 
life  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  oflers  this  as  a 
motive  power  to  all. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  really  the  motive  power  in  Chris- 
tianity, an  almighty  power  not  added,  but  entering  into 
all  our  work.  Noi  that  we  live,  but  Christ  by  his  Spirit 
living  in  us. 

When  Christ  has  been  received,  neither  the  rational 
or    moral    convictions    alone    actuate    a   man.    (1   John 


36 

2  :  20.)     The  dispositions  are  of  divine  origin  ;   no  man 
can  call  Jesus,  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Summary. 

(1)  The  new  and  characteristic  motive  object  that 
Christianity  brings  and  holds  before  the  mind  and  heart, 
is  the  most  inflnential  conceivable. 

(2)  Every  other  object  with  which  the  moral  life  is 
concerned,  has  its  import  and  power  enhanced  by  the 
relation  into  which  it  comes  to  God  in  Christ. 

(8)  In  all  who  are  brought  rightly  to  apprehend  and 
respond  to  this  revelation  of  God  in  Christ,  there  is  a 
peculiar  and  powerful  divine  inworkiiig,  as  well  as  co- 
working  of  God   in  man.     Faith  overcomes  the  world. 

Objections  urged  against  the  morality  of  Christianity  : 

1.  The  Ethical  system  of  Christianity  is  not  scientific, 
nor  presented  in  scientific  form. 

If  this  is  anything  more  than  a  pedantic,  frivolous 
objection  it  rests  on  the  misconception,  thnt  the  Bible  is 
a  scientific  book.  If  it  be  scientific  to  take  the  only 
complete  view  of  man's  condition  and  relations,  then 
Christian  Ethics  is  scientific. 

If  scientific  to  locate  and  arrange  and  define  duty  as 
never  before,  then  the  morality  of  Christianity  is  sci- 
entific. 

If  it  be  scientific  to  perfect  man's  conception  of  vir- 
tue, and  to  set  before  man  thf.  highest  good  any  system 
has  yet  presented  ;  if  to  show  the  possibility  of  reaching 
this  high  excellence,  and  to  supply  the  moral  power  nec- 
essary, then  Christian  morality  is  scientific. 

2.  Another  group  of  objections. 

The  requirements  and  standards  of  Christian  morals 
are  too  liigh  for  such  a  world  as  this.  Too  transcen- 
dental, too  easily  exaggerated  and  distorted  by  us  in  our 
apprehension  of  it. 

(a)  Standard  too  high. 

What  should  the  best  system  aim  at  ?  AVould  that 
be  a  better  system  of  morals  which  should  aim  at  any- 
thing less  than  likeness  to  God  ?  Would  it  be  an  \m- 
provement  to  lower  the  standard,  so  that  we  might  hope 
to  reach  it  ? 

(b)  Requirements  visionary  and  transcendental.. 

E.  g.,  "  Whosoever   shall    smite    tliee    on    thy    right 


37 

cheek,    tiini    to    him    the   other  also."      "  Charity  that 
thiiiketh  no  evih" 

But  we  must  take  into  consideration  the  circum- 
stances and  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  uttered.  The  ob- 
jection lies  often  against  the  form  of  statement ;  when 
we  study  all  together  the  visionary  and  transcendental 
disappears. 

(c)   The  St/stem  too  delicate  and  liable  to  distortion. 

It  presents  its  requirements  so  vividly  that  men  run 
into  asceticism.  Zeal  in  good  works  is  apt  to  make  no 
account  of  knqwledge,  and  to  lose  the  proper  balance 
and  proportion  of  true  living. 

True,  it   has  sometimes  led   to  perversion:  develop- 
ment has   been    unsymmetricah      True,  men    have   been  • 
called   upon  to  extirpate  what    Christianity  would    regu-  , 
late.      We   might   say  the  fault  is  in  human  nature,  but 
this    is    not    a    sufficient   answer,  because   the  system  is 
given  to  us  in  our  present  condition. 

It  grows  out  of  the  very  nature  ot  a  moral  sj'stem, 
working  by  motives,  that  it  does  not  elfectually  protect 
itself  against  the  infirmities  of  human  nature.  It  is  not 
to  be  expected  that  it  would  constrain  man  always  and' 
everywhere.  The  motives  are  set  before  us,  and  the 
responsibility  of  seeing  the  truth,  and  doing  the  right, 
is  left  to  us. 

Would  the  system  be  better  if  shorn  of  its  power, 
robbed  of  the  vividness  of  its  presentation,  and  less 
urgent  in  its  apjteals?  These  become  the  occasions  of 
exaggeration  and  distortion  ;  shall  we  therefore  take 
them  away  ?  It  is  evident  that  this  very  character  of  the 
Gospel  is  its  power,  and  secures  the  measure  of  Chris- 
tianity that  exists. 

Some  make  so  much  of  truth  as  to  become  dogma- 
tists ;  some  make  so  much  of  ceremony  as  to  become 
formalists.  These  are  exceptions.  The  misuse  of  a 
principle  does  not  do  away  with  its  right  use. 

3.  Another  group  of  objections  charges  the  moral 
system  of  Christianity  with  positive  and  serious  incom- 
pleteness. John  Stuart  Mill  says,  the  0.  T.  must  be 
used  to  complete  the  morality  of  the  K  T.,  and  that  of 
the  O.  T.  is  bad  enough. 

He  says  it  is  a  reaction  against  certain  things  that  are 


88 

wrong.  Its  character  is  negative  rather  than  positive. 
It  makes  obedience  the  only  valuable  thing,  and  thus 
takes  away  a  man's  dignity. 

Answer:  It  is  no  disparagement  that  the  Old  and  N. 
T.  morality  must  betaken  together  to  complete  a  perfect 
system.  Both  were  in-otituted  of  God  for  different 
times. 

To  the  objection  that  Christian  morality  is  passive 
rather  than  active,  innocence  rather  than  nobleness,  ab- 
sence from  evil  rather  than  active  power  to  gooil,  Prin- 
cipal Shairp  answers,  "  this  is  ignorance  or  obstinacy, 
not  to  be  expected  from  Mill."  The  precepts  and  teach- 
ings.of  the  N.  T.  prove  tliis  objection  totally'  nnfonnded. 

Then  as  to  the  loss  of  self-respect,  obedience  to  God 
lis  not  luimiliating  or  degrading.  Who  has  a  greater 
right  to  respect  himself  than  the  man  who  is  a  child  of 
God  ? 

4.  Christianity  as  an  Ethical  system,  it  is  said,  fails  to 
recognize  adequately  some  of  man's  most  important  re- 
lations, and  is  positively  unfriendly  to  some  of  his  high- 
est interests. 

Prof.  Newman  says,  Christianity  cramps  human 
freedom.  It  treats  the  instinct  or  love  of  knowledge 
and  beauty  as  illegitimate.  In  regard  to  family  and  pri- 
vate rights  decisions  are  given  which  are  seeds  of  per- 
nicious errors.  It  disparages  or  omits  duties  to  the 
state.  It  ignores  the  rights  of  men  and  nations,  though 
it  says  much  of  the  rights  of  kings  and  rulers.  It  sup- 
ports lamentable  superstitions,  adverse  to  the  progress 
of  civilization. 

(«)  Cramjjs  freedom.  Answer:  Christianity  guards 
and  guides,  as  well  as  maintains,  human  freedom.  It 
rebukes  and  restrains  license;  it  holds  man  to  his  place 
as  a  finite  creature;  does  demand  faith  as  the  condition 
of  certain  kinds  of  knowledge.  But  within  proper 
bounds  Christianity  protects  man's  freedom  from  his 
own  and  other's  abuse  of  it,  prescribes  laws  for  it,  and 
conditions  of  its  working.  It  regulates  the  love  and  de- 
sire for  knowledge  and  beauty. 

Christianity  is  not  to  be  Jield  responsible  for  all  the 
narrowness  and  short-sightedness  exhibited  by  its  ex- 
ponents. 


39 

(b)  Pernicious  errors.  E.  g.  Undue  authority  given  to 
husbands,  fathers  and  mothers  at  the  expense" of  wives, 
children  and  servants,  disparaging  more  than  halfof  the 
human  race,  and  robbing  them  oV  their  freedom.  True 
Ciiristianity  does  not  sanction  modern  phih)3ophiea 
vv'hich  break  down  all  distinctions.  But  it  would  not  be 
hard  to  show  how  Christianity  has  formed  and  protects 
the  Christian  home.  Because  the  precepts  of  IN.  T.  are 
given  to  Christians,  it  is  no  reason  why  otiier  men  are 
not  to  be  bound  by  tliem  also.  All  men  ought  to  be 
Christians.  The  historical  effect  of  Christianity  does 
not  sustain  these  charges. 

(e)  Christianity  represented  as  unfavorable  to  patri- 
otic feeling  unci  service  to  one's  country.  It  either  takes 
no  notice  of  or  disparages  our  duty  to  the  state.  (Lecky, 
Mill,  Newman.) 

True  it  does  make  less  of  the  state  than  ancient  phil- 
osophies. It  does  not  say  that  man  is  a  political  ani- 
mal, but  this  is  to  its  credit.  True  that  early  Christians 
could  not  be  faithful  to  the  demands  of  the  state,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  Christ. 

They  could  not  take  part  in  idolatrj'  and  oaths  con- 
trary to  Scripture.  But  where  they  were  not  called  on 
to  sacrifice  principle  they  were  most  faithful.  The 
charge  now  rests,  chiefly  upon  there  being  little  said  in 
the  IST.  T.  about  our  duty  to  the  state.  .Moreover  it  is 
said  that  obedience  is  exhorted  to  rulers  rather  than  the 
state.  It  recognizes  kings,  however  tyrannical,  as  or- 
dained of  God,  but  not  nations  or  communities. 

Lecky  says,  that  patriotism  as  a  duty  has  never  found 
a  place  in  Christian  morals.     He  asserts, 

(1)  That  strong  religious  feeling  tends  to  divert  the 
mind  from  terrestrial  Uiings;  (2)  that  an  organized 
church  with  a  government  of  its  own,  an  interest  and  a 
policy,  and  a  frontier  intersecting  national  boundaries,  is 
unfavorable  to  national  sentiment.  Many  denomina- 
tions increases  the  difficulty. 

(3)  The  saintly  and  heroic  characters  wliich  represent 
the  ideals  of  Christianity  are  essentially  different.  Re- 
ligion develops  the  saintly  and  undermines  the  heroic. 

Answer  :  We  may  admit  that  small  space  is  given  to 
this,  and   that   Christianity  does    recognize    two  worlds. 


40 

the  spiritual  mid  secular.  Yet  we  repel  the  charge  and 
claim  that  no  devotion  to  the  state  is  so  pure,  no  service 
so  great,  as  that  of  the  Christian. 

Luthardt  says,  the  man  who  is  true  to  all  his  obliga- 
tions in  the  higher  sphere,  will  be  truest  to  all  the  ob- 
ligations of  the  lower.  Christianity  exhibits  a  better 
type  of  love  than  that  of  fellow  country-men.  All  hu- 
man affections  are  subordinated  to  love  to  Christ. 

Francis  William  Newton  in  his  "Phases  of  Faith," 
says,  "  the  rights  of  those  in  authority  are  jireserved  and 
advanced  by  the  morality  of  C'hristianity,  at  the  ex])ense 
of  the  nation  or  the  individual  subject.  Christianity  is 
always  a  main  sta}'  of  tyranny  and  oppression." 

Answer:  Christianity  does  emphasize  the  sentiments 
that  are  most  likely  to  be  deficient,  guards  the  rights 
most  lilscly  to  be  ignored.  It  aims  to  secure  the  sta- 
bility of  society.  This  is  not  gained  by  teaching  men 
to  always  and  everywhere  insist  on  their  oicn  rights. 
Men  must  learn  to  give  up  much  for  the  good  of  others. 

Christianity  throws  its  influence  on  the  side  which 
needs  sup])orting.  Yet  it  does  not  ignore  the  rights  of 
subjects.  It  impresses  rulers  also,  with  a  sense  of  their 
duties.  Being  ordained  of  God  only  shows  their  re- 
sponsibility to  God.  The  remedy  for  contempt  of  au- 
thority can  come  kindly,  and  efficiently,  only  from  the 
side  of  religion. 

Christianity  not  being  a  political  system  does  not  go 
into  detail  as  to  political  duties.  With  its  principle  of 
love  it  inculcates  also  that  of  self-sacrifice,  wliich  sup- 
plies the  underground  for  freedom,  courage,  and  faith- 
fulness. 

{d.)  It  is  charged  that  Christianity  supports  super- 
stitions.    Belief  in  ghosts,  witchcraft. 

We  are  willing  to  accept  the  responsibility  of  pro- 
moting belief  in  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  their  mali- 
cious activity  and  our  exposure  to  them,  and  the  use 
of  this  belief  to  warn  us.  We  don't  deny  the  abuse  of 
this  teaching.  We  simply  say  it  is  neither  equitable  nor 
scientific  in  view  of  the  great  power  of  Christianity  for 
good  to  make  these  charges.  It  is  not  Christians  who 
abuse  this  belief. 

((?.)  Religious  toleration. 


41 

What  does  Mr.  Newman  mean  by  toleration  ?  lie 
would  have  reliirions  iiidifierencc.  If  he  means  that 
Christianity  would  encourage  forcible  interference  in 
other  men's  beliefs,  we  deny  it.  If,  that  we  interest  our- 
selves in  other's  beliefs,  in  correcting  the  wrong,  and 
spreading  the  truth,  we  admit  it.  He  says,  Christianity 
is  favorable  to  intolerance  because  it  teaches  that  God 
will  visit  with  iiery  vengeance  those  who  hold  an  errone- 
ous creed,  hence  Christians  will  come  to  have  the  same 
feeling  toward  those  wiio  do  not  so  believe. 

But  that  Christians  have  any  warrant  for  this  or  have 
ever  taken  it.  we  den}'. 

(/.)  Christianity  is  said  to  be  adverse  to  the  progress 
of  civilization. 

One  form  of  this  charge  is  from  Matthew  Arnold. 
Pie  speaks  of  Hebraisms  and  Hellenisms.  Hebraism  i.  e. 
Christianity,  does  less  complete  justice  to  man  than  Hel- 
lenism, i.  e.  culture. 

Religion  exercises  and  developes  certain  elements  of 
maiv  to  the  neglect  of  others.  Hellenism  is  characterized 
by  spontaneity  of  action  and  breadth  of  culture.  The 
governing  idea  of  culture  is  complete,  symmetrical  de- 
velopment. He  admits  in  developing  a  full  manhood 
that  disci  pit  lie  should  occupy  the  first  place,  which  braces 
the  moral  powers,  and  furnishes  a  solid  basis  of  character. 
The  fault  of  religion  is  that  it  stops  there.  We  want  a 
fuller  and  more  harmonious  development  of  our  human- 
ity. 

Celsus  charged  Christians  long  betore  with  being  in- 
different to  wisdouK  "With  holding  that  the  wisdom 
that  is  in  the  world  i's  an  evil." 

But  Canon  Farrar  says  Christianity  made  culture 
possible  andsaved  the  intellect  of  the  world  from  selfish- 
ness, and  an  intoxicated  form  of  pride,  by  putting  it  lower 
than  the  affections. 

Culture  cannot  be  perfected  until  a  higher  end  than 
self  is  put  before  it.  The  N.  T.  insists  that  religion  is  to 
preside  over  and  encompass  all  culture. 

How  shall  a  man  make  the  most  of  himself?  What 
shall  he  do  with  his  culture,  and  why  should  he  cultivate 
himself  at  all  ?  lleligion  must  answer  these  questions, 
not  culture. 


42 

Sonic  alle£:e  that  the  influence  of  Christianity  is  ad- 
verse to  civilization.  Tliis  is  stronger  than  Arnold  who 
holds  that  Christianity  needs  to  he  supplemented.  In 
answer,  we  say,  that  no  civilization  has  risen  above 
Christian  civilization. 

Frothinghain,  and  others,  charge  that  Christianity 
teaches  men  to  nndervaloe  riches,  and  the  industries 
which  are  the  sources  of  civilization,  and  snaps  thd 
springs  of  human  enterprise.  It  teaches  man  to  keep 
the  eye  on  the  future  lifo.  Aris.  If  liuman  industries  are 
so  selfish  as  this  theory  maintains  they  need  to  be  snap- 
ped. Moreover  we  challenge  them  to  prove  that 
enterprises  are  not  developed  w^hen  men  are  laboring 
for  something  beside  self.  If  man  is  to  rise  to  the  high- 
est manhood,  we  claim  he  must  live  for  God  and  a  higher 
life. 

5th.  It  is  said  that  many  of  the  assumptions,  arcju- 
ments  and  appeals  of  Christianity  do  not  address  them- 
selves to  man  as  man,  but  are  only  of  force  on  the  con- 
dition that  Christianity  is  true. 

If  it  contained  fewer  questioned  truths  and  debated 
propositions,  it  would  be  better  fitted  to  move  all  men. 
Many  do  not  grant  its  postulates.  It  ought  to  take  truths 
universally  conceded  if  it  would  influence  men.  E.  g. 
Christianity  assumes  that  man  is  a  fallen  sinner.  But 
here  is  a  man  whodenys  this,  henceit  is  said  Christianity 
has  no  force  for  him,  and  therefore  it  is  not  calculated  to 
be  the  universal  religion. 

Arts.  Are  the  communications  of  Christianity  unnec- 
essary or  false?  Is  it  to  her  discredit  that  she  tells  ns 
we  did  not  know?  Tells  us  things  we- resent  ?  Would 
its  moral  basis  be  improved,  audits  effectiveness  increas- 
ed if  all  that  men  would  willingly  receive  as  true  were 
exscinded  ?  Is  it  not  to  its  credit  that  it  reveals  us  to 
ourselves  even  though  the  revelation  is  unwelcome  ? 

Tiiere  is  practical  need  of  more  knowledge  of  our- 
selves, our  wants  and  destiny.  Here  man  is  addressed 
as  man  needing  Christianity.  And  in  that  condition 
which  makes  Christianity  essential  to  him.  We  must 
be  told  the  truth,  disagreeable  as  it  may  be. 

6th.  The  great  Christian  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  leads  men  to  neijlect  an  active  and  resolute  moral- 
ity  and  even  to  tolerate  immorality. 


43 

Wcof  course  admit  that  tliis doctrine  lias  been  abused. 
Christianity  teaches  tliat  the  best  works  are  not  done 
for  sake  of  being  jnstiHed  by  them  wholly  or  in  part. 
That  is  not  the  truest  love  which  goes  forth  to  show  it- 
self as  love.  That  is  not  tlie  most  genuine  generosity 
which  is  always  complimenting  itself. 

Benevolence  loses  itself  in  its  object.  So  of  all  good 
r.ffectio'ns  and  good  works. 

Some  like  Gregg  hold  that  a  better  morality  is  secured 
when  men  are  taught  that  there  is  no  forgiveness.  That 
sin  has  no  pnnislimeut  excejit  riatural  consequences,  yet 
these  are  inevitable  hence  cannot  be  forgiven.  Teach 
men  this  and  they  have  some  inducement  to  guard  against 
sinning.     Brahmanism  also  teaches  this. 

It  is  only  from  revelation  that  man  knows  of  other 
consequences  of  sin  than  the  natural,  but  these  men  do 
not  admit  revelation.  From  the  nature  of  things  also,  it 
is  only  fi'om  revelation  that  a  hope  of  forgiveness  is 
raised. 

It  is  hard  to  see  how  a  better  morality  would  be  se- 
cured by  telling  men  that  there  is  no  forgiveness. 

That  after  the  lirst  sin  there  is  nothing  but  despair. 

When  the  scriptures  are  so  explicit  in  guarding  this 
docti'ine  of  justification  by  faith  from  abuse  and  teaciiing 
pure  holiness,  we  arc  authorized  in  denying  that  it  is  the 
servant  of  sin. 

7tli.  The  Christian  system  influences  men,  too  prom- 
inently and  exclusively  by  considerations  drawn  from  a 
futnrelife;  and  so  its  powers  are  impaired  over  the 
moralities  of  this  life.  Gregg  urges  in  his  Creeds  of 
Christendom  that  a  "  morbid  condition  of  the  soul  is 
produced  "  and  "  insincere  professions,"  aloss  of  earnest- 
ness in  taking  holil  of  tlie  evils  around  us. 

(a.)  Christia\iity  teaches  only  this,  that  a  just  propor- 
tion should  be  observed  between  things  visible  and  in- 
visible — things  temporal  and  eternal.  Keeping  these  in 
their  proper  ratio.  It  allows  earthly  things  a  place  but 
demands  that  tliey  be  kept  in  flieir  proper  place. 

Nature  needs  subduing  only  because,  and  in  so  far 
as,  man  is  disposed  to  disregard  this  proportion. 

{b.)  Christianity  teachesthatwhen  thisjustproportiou 
is  observed,  the  near,  the  visible,  the  temporal,  receive 


44 

better  care  than  wl, en  they  are  treated  as  man's  chief 
and  only  concern. 

The  motives  by  which  his  actions  arc  determined,  and 
the  laws  by  which  they  arc  regulated  and  the  results 
achieved  are  better  when  this  proportion  is  observed. 

(c.)  The  fact  that  life  is  probationary,  instead  of  low- 
ering, exalts  it.  The  fact  that  men  deal  here  as  stewards 
and  not  owners  makes  their  actions  more  responsible  and 
sacred,  and  brings  to  bear  new  motives. 

{(/.)  Practically  no  men  have  discharged  their  tem- 
poral and  social  duties  with  more  consistent  and  ^^crsistent 
diligence  and  fidelity,  than  those  moved  by  the  power  of 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  THE  DIVINITY  OF   CHRISTIANITY  DRAWN 
FROM    ITS    MORAL    CHARACTER. 

Usually  placed  among  the  internal  evidences,  but  so 
far  are  objective — since  they  belong  to  external  evidences. 

All  the  proofs  of  Christianity  are  moral,  not  demon- 
strative or  intuitive. 

Question.  Does  Christianity  show  in  moral  substance 
and  structure  such  characteristics  that  we  and  our  fellow 
men  must  ac^^ept  it  as  the  true,  the  authoritative  and 
divinely  sanctioned  religion? 

I.  J^''irst  Argument.  The  superiority  of  Christianity  as 
a  moral  s_ystem  appears  in  the  precision  and  completeness 
with  which  it  exhibits  the  facts  that  concern  man's  moral 
life. 

The  word  superiority  is  used  here  in  a  very  emphatic 
sense.  It  indicates  a  divine  not  a  human  authority.  *  In 
this  higher  sense  we  claim  a  superiority.  It  is  exhibited 
in  three  groups  of  facts. 

{a.)  Facts  in  reference  to  man's  own  nature,  both  in 
its  design  and  in  its  actual  condition. 

{h.)  Facts  with  reference  to  tlie  relation  which  man 
sustains.  Relations  to  all  beings  and  things  toward 
which  he  can  act  morally. 

{c.)  Facts  with  reference  to  the  end  to  be  secured  in 
and  by  these  relations,  an'd  by  man's  right  moral  action 
in  them. 

II.  The  superiority  of  Christianity  appears  in  the  way 
in  wliich  it  awakens  keeps,  alive,  and  develops  the  sense 
of  duty  in  most  perfect  symmetry.     Instruction  and  en- 


45 

lightenment  would  avail  little  without  the  help  of  Chris- 
tianity, arousing  and  purifying  the  moral  impulses. 

(a.)  Man  is  continually  confronted  with  the  moral 
rectitude  of  God.  This  is"  one  of  the  ways  in  which  duty 
is  kept  alive. 

(/>,)  The  reach  of  man's  responsihility  is  disclosed  in 
Christianity  as  nowliere  beside. 

(c.)  The  sanctions  and  gracious  provisions  of  Christi- 
anity are  designed,  among  other  things,  to  discipline  and 
invigorate  the  moral  sense. 

III.  Third  argument  formed  by  a  combination  of  the 
two  former.     The  superiority  is  nianifested, 

{a.)  In  the  duties  emphasized. 

(6.)  The  basis  on  which  it  puts  them. 

(c.)  The  order  in  which  it  presents  and  urges  them. 

[d.)  The  mode  in  which  it  presses  them  upon  us,  so 
that  by  this  vevy  process  which  brings  duty  to  view  the 
moral  sensibilities  are  awakened,  a-.ui  invigorated  to  the 
highest  degree. 

IV.  In  view  of  man's  abncn-mal  condition  as  a  sinner, 
the  superiority  of  Christianity  is  api)arent  in  its  exhibi- 
tion ot  the  conditions  on  which,  and  the  means  by  which, 
a  man  may  attain  the  end  of  his  existence  as  a  moral 
being. 

The  fact  of  man's  ruin  is  presented  most  vividly,  but 
along  with  it  Christianity  shows  what  God  has  done  to 
lift  him  out  of  it,  and  hence  man  is  not  driven  to  despair, 
but  is  shown  that  the  highest-  attainment  of  morality  is 
the  greatest  and  necessary  proof  of  his  gi-ateful  love,  and 
the  proper  fruit  of  faith. 

V.  Superiority  appears  also  in  the  motives  which  it 
employs  for  tlie  attainment  of  its  ends. 

{a.)  In  general,  as  virtue  is  exhibited  as  conformity  to 
tlie  will  of  God,  and  supreme  good,  as  (;onsisting  in  fel- 
lowshi])  or  life  with  God.  To  set  up  the  will  of  God  as 
a  standard  secures  immutability',  elevation  and  consist- 
ency in  the  standar<l. 

\b.)  It  is  more  characteristic  of  the  motive  elements 
and  powder  of  Christianity  that  it  reveals  the  great  love 
of  God  in  Christ,  so  that  whatever  we  do,  we  are  to  do 
it  unto  the  Lord. 

(e.)  This  superiority  appears  in  its  eidiancing  the 
significance  and  importance  of  all  duty   done  here,  and 


46 

all  failure  to  do  duty  here,  by  connecting  this  life  so 
closely  with  the  future  life,  so  that  whatever  we  do  here 
rightly  has  eternal  recognition  and  reward  and  all  fail- 
ure nnd  sin  brings  retribution  and  punishment  eternal. 

VI.  Another  token  of  sui)ei'iority  may  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  it  insists  so  strenuously  on  the  inward  rather 
than  the  outward  as  essential  in  morality. 

The  disposition  and  intent.  It  demands  the  outward 
as  the  complexion  of  the  inward,  it  does  not  begin  with 
it.  Incidental!}'  Ibis  characteristic  of  Christianit}-  secures 
the  culture  of  self-examinati.on — humility  and  sincerity. 

VII.  Another  peculiar  feature  of  the  superiority  of 
Christian  Ethics  is  that  tlie  system  makes  chief  use  of 
the  facts  of  individual  experience  and  of  history  rather 
than  of  s]>oculative  and  theoretical  truths. 

Prof.  Blackie  in  his  "  Four  Phases  of  Morals  "  com- 
pares Socrates  and  Christ.  The  one  a  help  and  guide, 
the  other  a  foundation  of  faith  and  fountain  of  life. 

Its  general  historical  character  and  speoilic  historical 
elements  contribute  much  to  the  moral  attiactivenessand 
power  of  Christianity. 

VIII.  If  Ave  look  distributively  at  the  chief  depart- 
ments of  practical  and  ajtplied  morals,  at  what  has  been 
called  theistic,  social  and  individual  Ethics,  we  find  still 
other  proofs  of  the  superiority  of  the  Christian  system 
and  of  its  divine  origin. 

(a.)  In  regard  to  its  exhibition  of  the  duties  which 
man  owes  to  God  we  notice  : 

(1.)  Its  fuller  disclosure  of  vital  facts  concerning  God. 
His  nature,  relations  and  work  with  reference  to  us. 
This  gives  a  broader  and  more  solid  basis  to  that  class 
of  duties  which  are  specitically  duties  to  God,  [is  well  as 
a  greater  definiteness,  vividness  and  power  to  the  duties 
themselves. 

(2.)  There  is  no  duty  that  has  not  a  side  turned  God- 
ward. 

God  is  recognized  as  having 'not  only  originally 
ordained,  but  as  having  a  present  concern  in  all  man's 
duties. 

{().)  The  duties  man  owes  to  his  fellow-man  are  put 
by  Cliristianity  distinctly  on  the  basis  of  the  universal 
Fatherhood  of  God — the  common  Brotherhood  of  man 
and  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ. 


47 

(1.)  All  the  relations  of  miui  to  man  are  essential  a'ul 
permanent,  are  ordinances  of  God  from  the  hei^^inniiiir ; 
and  are  continually  recoj^nized  and  rcorulatcd  in  "llisde  d- 
ings  with  men  in  ail  the  successive  stnges  of  revelation. 
They  are  frequently  dealt  witJi  by  direct  precei)t. 

(2.)  All  the  most  transient  relations  of  man  to  man, 
so  far  as  legitimate,  are  brought  under,  and  may  be  main- 
tained under,  the  sanctions  of  His  Worch  A  relation 
wliich  can  not  so  exist  and  accomplish  its  purpose  is  shown 
to  be  wrong. 

(3.)  Christianity  always  accomplishes  its  main  work 
in  society  through  principles  better  than  through  pre- 
cepts. 

Every  rehition  can  be  thus  regulated  by  principles. 
These  priticiples  run  through  both  dispensations,  ijiving 
flexibility  to  the  system  and  showing  it  suited  to  everv 
age  and  human  condition. 

(4.)  Christianity  works  for  the  regeneration  of  society, 
through  the  regeneration  of  the  individual. 

{'c.)  Man's  duties  to  himself  are  not  left  on  any  merely 
selfish  or  utilitarian  basis.  The  excellence  of  Christiani- 
ty here  appeal's. 

(1.)  In  the  dignity  ascribed  to  man's  origin. 

(2.  In  its  representation  of  the  expenditure  of  divine 
thought,  love  and  sacrifice,  of  wliicli  it  declares  man  the 
object. 

(3.)  In  that  which  Christianity  proposes  to  make  of 
man.  Tlie  future  glory  which  awaits  him.  In  one  sense 
we  cannot  think  too  highly  of  ourselves. 

IX.  The  weight  of  these  moral  arguments  for  the 
Divinity  of  Christianity  is  cumulative.  It  is  to  be  esti- 
mated by  the  combined  force  of  all.  The  combination 
being  multiplicative,  the  conclusiveness  of  these  argu- 
ments in  such  a  combination,  is  more  than  their  sum. 

The  moral  results  of  Christianity  as  illustrations  of 
its  nature  and  proof  of  its  divinity: 

Chas.  C.  llinnel:  "It  is  not  easy  to  sa}'  whether 
Christianity  has  done  more  good  or  evil  in  the  world." 
He  imputes  to  Christianity  asceticisnif  and  whatever 
other  evils  have  passed  under  its  name.  He  attributes 
to  civilization  much  that  we  asci-ibe  to  Christianity. 
There  is  great  difJiculty  in   eliminating  what  is  due  to 


48 

Christianity  in  tho  great  forces  wliich  combine  to  pro- 
duce results.  The  problem  is  a  complex  one.  But  the 
unquestionable  fruits  of  Christianity,  leaving  out  the 
doubtful,  are  enougb  to  prove  our  point. 

Prof.  Lecky  gives  three  criteria  of  judging  of  prog- 
ress in  the  moral  condition  of  a  country.  (1)  The 
changes  that  have  taken  place  in  the  moral  standard.  (2) 
In  the  moral  type.  (3)  The  degree  in  which  the  ideal 
of  moralists  has  been  realized  among  the  people.  By 
moral  standard,  be  means  the  degree  in  whicli  in  dif- 
ferent ages,  recognized  virtues  liave  been  enjoined  and 
practiced.  By  moral  type,  the  relative  importance  at- 
tached to  different  virtues  in  different  ages.  The  moral 
results  of  Christianity  are  tested: 

1.  With  reference  to  the  changes  wrought  by  it  in 
the  moral  judgments  that  have  prevailedamong  men. 

2.  With  respect  to  the  changes  wrought  in  the  vis- 
ible life  of  the  world. 

MORAL    JUDGMENTS. 

General   remarks: — 

A.  We  arc  prepared  to  expect  that  Christianity  will 
work  changes  in  the  moral  judgments  of  men,  from  the 
more  intimate  and  indissoluble  connection  which  it  es- 
tablishes between  religion  and  morality. 

Man's  relation  to  God,  in  Homer  and  other  classical 
writers,  is  legal  and  temporal  rather  than  moral.  There 
is  no  reference  to  the  inmost  spirit  and  dispositions. 
Religious  motives  were  supplied  for  civic  virtues,  not 
for  inward  impurity. 

Montesquieu  :  ''Paganism  forbade  onlj'  certain  gross 
crimes,  restraining  the  hand  but  neglecting  tho  heart." 

B.  There  is  not  only  a  more  intimate  relation  estab- 
lished between  religion  and  morality,  but  it  is  a  religion 
of  mutual  helpfulness.  Tiie  more  powerful  influence 
goes  forth  from'  religion. 

Schmid  traces  the  moral  importance  of  Paganism: 

(1)  To  the  uRture  of  Polytheism,  which  detracts  and 
weakens  both  religion  and  morality. 

(2)  To  the  low  and  corrupting  representations  which 
crowded  mythology,  art  and  worship. 


49 

Lecky  :  "Ancient  Rome  ]M-o(liiced  many  heroes  but 
no  saints."  Such  was  the  influence  of  pafianism,  while 
that. of  Christianity  is  directly  and  powerfully  helpful  to 
morality,  sensibility  and  Juds^nient,  penetrating  to  the 
moral  essence  of  sin  and  holiness;  bringino;  new  ineanin" 
ai.d  power  to  the  old  terms  evil,  good,  conscience,  &c. 

C.  Group  1st.  Illustrations  of  the  new  moral  jud«r- 
mentsdeveloi)od  by  Christianity: 

I.  We  notice  the  new  estimate  which  Christianity 
led  each  individual  man  to  put  on  himself  and  others. 
It  is  the  claim  of  Christianity  to  have  created  the  idea  of 
humanity.  It  first  declared  what  it  was  to  be  a  man. 
Tliis  new  estimate  led  to  greater  self-respect,  and  also  to 
the  renouncing  of  unh'.dy  conceit  and  pride,  because  we 
constantly  see  how  far  short  we  fall  of  the  standard. 
This  would  and  did  prevent  men  from  [lutting  their 
powers  to  low  uses,  and  from  sinking  into  degrading  as- 
sociations : 

a.  New  views  are  given  to  man  of  the  sanctity  of 
liuman  life.  Suicide  had  been  commended  by  ancient 
religions,  philosojihies  and  examples.  But  Christianity 
pronounced  it  self-murder.  Ai)ortion  and  infanticide 
were  very  prevalent  crimes,  justified  by  legislators. 
Lycurgns  said  that  weaklings  should  be  put  out  of  the 
wa}'.  Christianity  stamps  this  as  murder.  Paganism 
sanctioned  gladiatorial  combats,  which  Christianity  from 
the  first  resisted  and  condemned.  Lecky  regards  the 
abolition  of  this  amusement  as  one  of  the  most  signal 
triumphs  of  Christianity. 

b.  Christianity  taught  the  world  to  attach  a  new 
value  to  chasdtj/.  The  ancient  religions  had  contributed 
to  tlie  demoralization  of  society.  The  system  of  sla- 
very and  other  agencies  led  to  every  imaginable  form 
of  pollution.  Christianity  came,  demanding  purity 
everywhere;  in    the   home  and   marriage  relations ;  be- 

,tween  man  and  man.  The  human  body  was  made  more 
sacred  by  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  Men  and  women 
are  exhorted  to  become  flt  tem[)les  for  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Purity  was  made  essential  to  self-respect. 

c.  Christianity  taught  men  to  put  a  new  value  on 
veracity/.  The  self-respect  of  the  individual  man  and  the 
interests  of  society  were  thus  enhanced  and  guarded. 


50 

Plato  and  the  Stoics  under  certain  conditions  jostiiied 
lying.  Leckv  snys,  that  the  influence  of  Chric^tianityMs 
not  entirely  favorable  to  veracity.  He  makes  throe  forms 
of  veracity  : 

(1)  Industrial,!,  e.,  fidelity  to  engagements  and  state- 
ments.    It  touches  the  }3ractical  industries  of  life. 

(2)  Political,  which,  in  matters  of  controversy  and 
public  interest,  would  have  all  opinions,  arguments  and 
facts  faii-ly  stated. 

(3)  Philosophical,  which  pursues  truth  for  its  own 
sake.  It  desires  to  estimate  truth  for  just  what  it  is. 
It  cultivates  a  judicial  spirit  in  controversy.  These  forms 
are  emphasized  ip  proportion  to  the  growth  of  civiliza- 
tion. 

He  represents  the  theological  spirit  as  an  adversary 
to  progress,  in  retarding  the  growth  of  the  last  two 
forms.  It  prompts  the  repression  of  all  opinions  and 
facts  not  in  accord  with  common  faith.  "  Indeed,"  he 
says,  "  Christian  veracity  deserves  to  raidv  with  Punic 
faith."  But  the  very  reverse  is  true.  Christianity  has 
exalted  veracity  to  what  it  was  not  before.  The  Ro- 
man satirists  comment  on  this  want  of  good  faith  in 
their  time.  Pliny  says,  the  oath  of  the  Christian  was 
to  avoid  theft,  adultery  and  falsehood. 

[d)  Christianity  creates  the  new  virtue  of  humility. 
Life  acquires  a  new  sacredness,  so  that  man  has  reason 
to  think  more  of  himself  Christianity  never  suffers 
man  to  reproach  himself,  nor  reproaches  him  with  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  dependent  creature.  It  does  show  him 
to  be  a  sinner,  and  charges  him  to  humble  himself  on 
that  account;  requiring  him  in  this  regard  to  consent  to 
the  verdict  of  reason  and  conscience.  Modest  estimates 
of  self  were  seldom  inculcated  in  heathen  philosophy, 
but  even  then,  it  was  for  natural  and  moral  reasons. 
Appollonius. 

D.  Group  2nd.  Changes  which  Christianity  pro- 
duced in  man's  estimate  of  certain  common  and  often 
inevitable  conditions  of  human   life. 

Labor  was  regarded  as  a  hindrance  to  public  life,  de- 
grading and  impairing  virtue.  Plato,  Aristotle,  Socrates 
and  the  historians  all  notice  and  comment  on  this. 
They  said  that  labor  was  remanded  to  a  particular  class; 


51 

that  it  blunted  virtue  and  intellinjence,  and  nuist  be 
done  by  slaves.  Christianity  reinstates  labor  in  tlie  re- 
spect of  the  world,  and  shows  it  worthy  of  men  of  all 
ranks.  No  redistribution  of  property  could  have  been 
as  valuable  to  the  world  as  this  exaltation  of  labor.  This 
view  of  it  was  commended  by  eminent  Christian  ex- 
amples. Adam,  unfallen,  was  put  in  the  garden  to  care 
for  it.  The  Apostles  inculcated  the  duty  and  the  honor 
of  labor.  It  was  brought  into  close  connection  with 
Christian  charity  and  so  ennobled.  It  is  the  Christian's 
dut}'  to  labor  that  he  may  have  something  to  give. 

Poverty. — A  no  less  promincuit  and  beneficent 
change  was  wrought  by  Christianity  in  the  idea  of  pov- 
erty. Greece  and  Rome  pronounced  it  dishonorable. 
Juvenal's  third  satire  expressed  the  common  opinion  of 
his  age.  "  The  gods  waste  no  thunderbolts  on  a  poor 
man."  Plato  taught  that  the  children  of  poor  men 
were  no  better  than  bastards,  and  a  poor  man  has  no 
right  to  increase  his  class.  The  poor,  as  poor,  are  not 
entitled  to  relief,  for  to  show  kindness  to  a  poor  man 
was  only  to  prolong  his  miser}'. 

Schmid  says,  that  it  was  necessary  to  reinstate  man- 
hood and  to  rehabilitate  labor;  to  teach  the  rich  to  re- 
8[)ect  the  poor,  and  the  poor  to  respect  himself,  and  to 
be  content  with  liis  lot.  Christ  ennoMed  poverty,  for 
he  was  poor.  Christianity  works  in  two  ways  :  first, 
inwardly  in  the  hearts  of  the  poor  themselves;  second, 
outwardly  in  producing  sympathy,  respect  and  charity. 
It  removes  the  stigma  from  poverty.  "  To  the  poor  the 
Gospel  is  preached." 

E.  Group  3rd.  New  estimates  put  on  man's  relations 
and  duties  to  his  fellow  man. 

Illustrations  maybe  taken  from  three  departments: 

a  Christianity  implied,  demanded  and  promoted  a 
new  value  of  family  relations  and  duties,  and  of  the 
nature  and  work  of  home;  especially  the  place  of  the 
wife  and  mother  in  tlie  home.  Not  only  among  sav- 
ages, but  under  Grecian  and  Roman  culture,  woman 
was  greatly  disparaged  and  despised.  Her  physical 
feebleness  and  incapacity  to  serve  the  state,  put  her 
down  with  the  children,  the  slaves  and  the  poor.  She 
was    endured    because  of  her  sex  and   not  for  her  hu- 


52 

manify.  In  the  family  wliich  existed  for  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  state,  she  had  no  intluence,  or  valne,  except 
as  a  necessity  for  this  end. 

Some  have  attributed  the  ruin  of  ancient  civilization 
to  the  low  estimate  of  won^an.  It  was  ou'i  of  the  chief 
causes.      Among  the  Hebrews  she  had  a  higher  placp. 

Christianity  gives  her  the  respect  due  to  her  as  made 
in  the  image  of  God,  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
and  made  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  her  human 
relations,  she  is  represented  not  as  the  burden,  bnt  as 
the  glory  of  man,  sliaring  with  him  the  honors  and  re- 
sponsibilities of  home. 

Monogamy  is  insisted  upon  ;  adultery  and  concu- 
binage denounced.  Gratitude  had  something  to  do 
with  the  welcome  given  to  Christianity  by  woman. 

(/>)  Christianity  developed  new  inter[)retations  of  jus- 
iice  and  equity,  wherever  their  principles  found  applica- 
tion among  men.  Kot  only  in  the  family,  but  every- 
where, it  gives  new  force  to  these  ideas. 

Justice  and  equit3'are  not  measured  by  the  law  or  by 
the  standard  of  a  community.  Man  is  to  live  right- 
eously as  well  as  soberly  and  godly.  There  are  three 
elements  of  Christianity  which  contribute  to  this 
change: 

1.  The  new  views  which  Christianity  takes  and  de- 
mands of  the  nature  and  intrinsic  worth  of  the  [)arties 
in  any  transaction. 

2.  The  new  aspect  given  to  the  fact  that  God  has  in- 
stituted these  relations,  and  has  a  purpose  in  them. 

3.  In  the  new  spirit  and  principle  implanted  in  man 
to  interpret  his  responsibilities. 

Christianity  disclosed,  in  a  sense  created,  the  very 
idea  of  humanity,  and  all  the  r'elations  of  Christianity 
were  n)ade  in  relation  to  the  good  of  humanity.  Love 
is  made  the  impelling,  regulating  principle  of  life.  Jus- 
tice and  equity  are  to  be  construed  by  love.  Who  is  my 
neighbor,  if  all  are  alike  in  creation,  in  redemption,  in 
dependence  on  grace  ? 

Christianity  regulates  our  use  of  our  freedom,  what 
we  may  or  may  not  do.  The  transient  duties  are  dis- 
tinguished from  the  permanent.  We  are  to  love  our 
neighbors  as  ourselves.      The  selfish  idea  of  measurinor 


53 

duty  by  mere  justice  is  done  away.  It  is  not  mere  Ic-iral 
indebtedness.  Love  is  made  rlie  expounder  of  uritrcMi 
as  well  as  unwritten  obliu:ation. 

In  the  state,  Christianity  tauirht  new  lessons  of  what 
rulers  owe  to  subjects,  and  what  subjects  owe  to  rulers. 
It  does  iiot  presume  to  prescribe  the  form  of  i^'overn- 
ment;  it  strikes  at  sclfishnes  and  capi-ice  in  th^Muter- 
pretation  of  the  ricrhts  of  rukirs,  and  at  the  hiwlessness 
and  servility  of  subjects.  The  stale  is  made  a  means, 
not  an  end.  Old  systems  made  it  the  end  to  which  evei» 
tlie  family  was  subordinate.  As  rulers,  men  exist  for 
God  and  the  people,  and   not  for  self 

It  is  ol)jected  that  between  the  consideration  demand- 
ed by  Christianity  for  all  men  as  men,  and  the  specilic 
and  intense  love  demanded  of  Christians  for  Christian 
brethren,  the  breath  of  life  is  crushed  out  of  patriotism. 

In  the  provision  made  for  the  mutual  fidelity  of 
ruler  and  ruled,  we  have  the  best  safeguard  of  patriot- 
ism, lu  the  family,  Christianity  deiined  more  perfectly 
and  consecrated  more  fully  all  the  existin<r  relations, 
and  tJie  mutual  obligations  of  its  member.<».  (TropIon<^, 
"Influence  of  Christianity  among  the  llomans.") 

Christianity  strikes  with  the  same  blow,  adultery 
which  provokes  divorce,  and  divorce  which  provokes 
adultery,  and  puts  the  conjugal  bond  above  the  caprice 
of  man. 

One  of  the  stei'uest  judgments  which  Paul  passed  on 
the  heathen  world  was  that  it  is  without  natural  affec- 
tion ;  and  tliis  is  justified.  Children  were  a  species  of 
property.  Troplong  says,  the  relation  of  blood  is  dead 
and  passive.  Vico  says,  that  in  order  that  parentage 
may  make  itself  hej'rd,  it  must  put  on  the  civil  mask. 
The  mere  rehition  of  father  is  imi)ortant. 

Schmid  :  "  The  children  belonged  to  the  father  and 
he  was  to  consult  only  the  public  interest.  He  miglit 
sell  or  capitally  punish  them.  Christianity  confers 
rights  on  children,  and  duties  on  parents  and  vice  versa." 

Troplong  pictures  the  conflict  between  a  lather  on 
the  one  hand,  and  children,  wife  and  slaves  on  tlieotiier, 
urKler  the  empire  when  the  father  had  been  stripped  of 
much  of  his  authority.  Hence  Christianity  was  charged 
with  teaching  the  insubordination  of  wife  and  children, 


54 

subvertiijo:  order,  loosening  the  bonds  between  slave  and 
master,  child  and  parent.  This  charge  in  the  face  of 
the  fact  that  love  was  alread}'  beginning,  a?  a  new  bond, 
to  exei't  its  refoi-niing  influence  in  the  famil}'. 

Into  the  mutual  relation  between  masters  and  ser- 
vants, new  ideas  are  introduced.  In  tlie  old  Roman  law 
the  most  valuable  proi)ert3'  was  lands,  slaves,  and  beasts 
used  in  assisting  men. 

Cato  :  "  Our  slaves  are  our  enemies."  Nero,  strange 
to  relate,  is  the  tirst  to  recognize  rights  of  slaves;  he 
charged  magistrates  to  receive  complaints  of  slaves 
against  their  masters.  Seneca  alone,  in  his  day,  vindi- 
cated the  humanity  of  slaves.  Paul :  (Col.  4  :  1)  "■  Mas- 
ters give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal;  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven." 
(Comp.  Eph.  vi,  9.) 

It  has  been  said  that  the  master  needed  Christianity 
more  than  the  slave.  • 

Schn)id  :   In  a  society  in  which  all  men  are  equal  and 
actuated  by  love,  free  service  will  be  one  olfecl,  and  slav-^ 
ery  an  accident,  which,  under  the  principle  at  work,  will 
gradually  be  removed. 

Lecky :  Slavery  was  recoiiiiized,  but  Christianity  in- 
troduced three  principles  :  tlie  new  order  of  relation  be- 
tween master  and  slave,  the  moral  dignity  which  attaches 
to  the  slave,  and  the  moral  impetus  to  enfranchisement 
of  the  slave. 

Christianity  so  transformed  and  developed,  that  it 
may  almost  be  said  to  have  created,  charity. 

In  the  least  remarkable  form  it  led  men  to  relieve 
the  wants  of  the  brethren.  Even  this  was  unknown  be- 
fore; for  the  conception  of  a  moral  obligation  to  relieve 
those  of  the  same  faith  was  new  to  heathendom.  But 
charity  reached  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  common  faith 
and  owned  the  bonds  of  a  simple  human  brotherhood, 
manifested  in  its  strongest  form  in  love  to  enemies. 

Fruits  of  Christian  principle  appeared  and  those 
watching  testified  to  their  wide-spread  influence,  so  that 
heathen  observers  wondered.  JDuring  the  persecution 
in  Carthage,  Christians  relieved  those  dying  of  the  plague, 
imperiling  their  own  lives. 

Julian  said  :  These  godless  Galileans  nourish  not  oidy 


55 

tlieir  own  poor,  but  also  ours,  iuvitiiiir  tlicMii  to  tlieir  h.vo 
feasts  and  attraetino  tlieni  as  childroM  with  cakes. 

Tertullian  :  To  love  friends  is  coininoii  to  all ;  to  love 
enemies  peculiar  to  Cliristians  alone. 

This  teaching  of  Christianit.v  grew  out  of  the  new 
views  which  Christianity  exemplified  and  inculcated  with 
regard  to  the  very  nature  of  charity. 

Heathenism  did  not  cherish  charity  even  in  the  fam- 
ily. Christianity  wonderfully  refined  the  sensibilities, 
and  puritied  tlie  emotional  nature.  Charity  was  built 
on  the  deeper  foundation  of  i)rinciple,  love  to  God 
being  the  general  motive,  love  to  Christ  the  more 
specific. 

Aristotle,  in  his  Ethics,  says,  that  friemlship  cannot 
exist  without  mulual  love,  which  cannot  bo  conceived 
of  on  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Being.  It  would  sound 
strangely  for  one  to  say  he  loved  Zeus. 

Christ's  identification  of  himself  with  the  poor  and 
the  poor  with  himself,  gave  new  meaning  to  chnritv. 
Christianity,  Lecky  says,  efiected  a  comi»lete  reforniati(')n 
by  showing  the  identification  of  the  poor  with  it^ 
founder. 

Human  brotherhood  has  been  a  dream  of  some 
lieathen  philosophers  but  never  a  reality:  we  find  feeble 
indications  of  it  in   the  classics. 

Terence:  "  lam  a  man,  and  nothing  that  belongs  to 
man  do  I  count  foreign  to  myself" 

"  Christo  in  pauperibus,"  an  old  inscrijition  testify- 
ing to  the  union  of  the  poor  with  Christ. 

Christ  had  shown  that  the  love  of  enemies  was  not 
a  mere  negative  thing,  but  a  positive  love. 

The  Indian  books  which  are  extolled  by  free  relig- 
ionists, are  found  on  examination  to  be  very  defective, 
and  the  virtues  commended,  they  could  not  make  vital. 

On  the  other  hand  Christians  began  immediately  to 
practice,  not  merely  to  quote  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

II.  Is  there  anj'diing  to  show  that  the  ideal  has  been 
realized  ;  that  Christianity  wrought  actual  changes  in  the 
life  of  men  ?  Was  it  true  that  men  merely  gained  a 
new  conception  of  virtue,  and  not  the  power  t(»  prac- 
tice it? 


06 

What  chccncjes  have  been  wrought  in  the  visible  life  of  the 
world  ? 

Wlmt  was  an  ideal  200i\,  has  been  made  a  real  good. 
The  world  is  no  more  what  it  was  before  Cliristianity 
came.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  either  tliat  notliino; 
but  Christianity  was  tending  in  the  direction  of  this 
improvement,  or  tliat  the  designed  result  was  at  once  or 
is  yet  fully  reached. 

We  need  only  show  that  Christianity  has  done  eome- 
thing  toward  great  changes,  not  attempted  before.  It  in 
enongli  if  we  cannot  account  for  these  beneficial  r»^sults 
without  Christianity,  while  on  the  other  hand  we  can 
account  for  the  incompleteness  of  the  results  without 
making  Christianity  responsible. 

Some  consideraiions. 

a.  The  estinuite  put  on  man  as  man. 

(1)  Did  Christianity  practically,  and  not  merely  in 
theory  teach  that  life  is  sacred?  Lecky  (uQt  over  fond 
of  Christianity)  pronounces  it  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant services  of  Christianity,  that  it  definitely  and  dog- 
matically asserted  the  sini'ulness  of  all  destruction  of 
human  life.     (European  Morals,  vol.  ii,  p.  21.) 

(2)  As  to  chastity,  the  world  is  much  purer  than  it 
was  without  Christianity.  Sanctity  and  purity  are  se- 
cured to  the  marriage  relation  by  Christianity. 

(3)  \^eraciiy.  fidelity.  Illustrated  by  a  single  fact. 
The  Euro]>ean  Constantine  Chloras,  father  of  Constan- 
tine  the  Great,  surrounded  himself  with  Christians  be- 
cause of  their  fidelity.  To  test  them,  he  one  day  gave 
them  the  alternative  of  renouncing  their  faith,  or 
losing  their  position.  Most  kept  their  faith.  These  he 
restored  to  their  positions,  Avhile lie  dismissed  the  others, 
saying,  that  those  who  would  betray  their  God  would 
betray  man. 

(4)  Htunility. — Christianity  did  not  merely  add  hu- 
mility to  the  catalogue  of  virtues,  but  gave  it  as  an 
actual  power. 

Lecky  says,  that  humility  is  the  crowning  grace  of 
all  the  saintly  type  of  graces.  Though  he  thinks  there 
is  another  type  of  graces,  a  wholesome  pride.  There 
was  a  danger  of  humility  leading  to  servility.  This  is 
questiouable.     James  says,  that  God  resisteth  the  proud. 


57 

Philosophical  pride  is  not  the  parent  and  <rnide  of  so 
many  virtues  as  Mr.  Lecky  claims.  Man  cannot  wear 
two  faces,  hninble  toward  God  and  proud  toward  man. 

Christianity  had  a  double  victory  to  ^ain,  not  merely 
to  conquer  the  defects  and  shams  of  society,  but  chiefly 
to  gain  a  victory  over  every  heart,  to  enable  each  miii 
to  conquer  himself. 

b.  The  change  wrought  by  Christianity  in  the  world's 
estimate  of  labor  and  poverty.  Consult  Neander, 
Church  History,  i,  §3;  also  Memorials  of  Christian 
Life;  Merivales's  Conversion  of  the  Roman  Empire,  also 
Conversion  of  Northern  Nations  (Boyle  Lectures); 
Pressense's  Martyrs  and  Apologists  of  Christianity. 

c.  To  what  extent  Christianity  wrought  a  change  in 
man's  relation  to  man.     (See  Pliny's  Letter  to  Trajan.) 

Free  religionists  call  attention  to  the  tenderness  of 
Hindooism  toward  animals,  and  yome  German  replies 
that  it  builds  hospitals  for  sick  cows,  but  burns  widows 
and  throws  children  into  the  Ganges. 

Bearing  of  Christian  missions  on  the  evidence  that  Chris- 
tianiti/  is  from  God. 

There  are  two  questions. 

(1)  Are  Christian  missions  a  normal  characteristic, 
and  necessary  outgrowth  of  Christianity? 

If  so  (2)  what  do  missions  prove  as  to  Christianity  ? 

1.  The  work  undertaken»and  prosecuted  in  the  pre- 
cise line  of  the  parting  commission  of  Christ  to  his 
church,  as  well  as  in  the  line  of  other  teacliings  of  His. 
(Matt.  28:19,  20.) 

One  essential  feature  is  the  acknowledgment  of 
Christ's  supremacy  and  what  he  says  is  to  be  done,  for 
he  is  not  only  Redeemer  but  Lord.  The  church  is  not 
to  be  merely  a  preaching  and  teaching  church,  l)ut  a 
going  church. 

Not  merely  to  teach,  and  preach  to  those  lying 
hardening  in  sin,  about  our  doors  or  within  a  Sabbath 
Jay's  journey,  but  to  go  into  all  the  world.  So  far  forth 
as  the  church  is  doing  this,  she  is  doing  what  is  an 
e556'??^/aZ  part  of  Christianity. 

Effectual  doors  are  opened  by  Providence.  1  he 
church  must  be  ready  to  enter  in  when  the  door  i« 
opened,  and  not  be  taken  by  surprise. 


58 

2.  The  work  of  missions  is  a  fittins^  and  necessary 
manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  as  imparted  to  the 
church  and  dwelling  in  it. 

This  spirit  would  prompt  the  church  to  mission  work, 
even  without  the  commission  ;  if  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  His,  so  also  of  the  church. 

Where  this  spirit  is  the  same  motives  and  aiins  must 
prevail  as  were  in  Christ.  Not  merely  must  I  go,  but 
may  I  go. 

3.  The  work  of  Christian  missions  is  a  work  of  in- 
telligent obedience  to  Christ  and  Christ-like  love  of 
men,  directed  towards  and  adapted  to  advance  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation. 

The  Christian  dispensation  is  the  manifestation  of 
the  glory  of  God,  of  the  glory  of  God's  grace,  of  God's 
grace  in  saving,  grace  in  saving  men,  saving  men 
through  Christ,  through  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation. 

4.  Those  who  receive  the  Gospel  hold  it  in  part  as 
a  trust  for  others.  Paul  was  a  debtor  to  the  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  So  every  disciple  owes  the  Gospel  to  others. 
Christian  intelligence  regards  it  as  due  to  others. 

5.  Another  proof  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  early 
church  full  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  and  fresh  from  the 
teachings  of  Christ  was  pre-eminently  a  mission  church. 
So  every  church  in  proportion  to  its  fullness  of  the  spirit 
of  Christ.  , 

The  English  church  was  charged  by  a  Pope  as  not 
being  a  true  church  because  it  was  not  a  missionary 
church.     (This  was  some  3'ears  ago.) 

It  ifi  not  so  much  the  presence  of  the  mission  spirit 
and  work  that  needs  to  be  accounted  for,  as  the  absence 
of  it  when  wanting. 

The  church  that  is  no't  going  and  preaching  must  tell 
why. 

Objections  against  this  view  of  the  vital  and  essential 
union  of  missions  with  Christianity. 

Objections  from  Catholicism  (1)  the  Catholic  church 
asserts  that  the  Protestant  body  not  being  the  church  of 
Christ,  has  neither  the  right  nor  the  divine  call,  so  that 
the  work  must  be  spurious.  (2)  It  calls  upon  Protes- 
tants to  unity  of  faith  before  they  go  out  to  disturb 
the  nations  with  diverse  beliefs. 


59 

It  is  not  necessary  to  jinswvr  the  ohjection  that  such 
work  must  be  begun  "  fVoin  Jeriisaleiii,"  since  Christ 
commanded  them  "  beginnino;  from  Jerusalem,"  Tlie 
work  at  home  must  not  be  perfected  before  a  f.-reij^n  is  be- 
gun. Wliere  sliould  we  be  if  the  church  had" always 
taken  care  only  of  the  work  at  home.  It  is  further  ohjccted, 
missions  are  an  artilicial  graft  on  the  original  stock  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  alien  to  its  nature  arising  from 
narrow  views  of  man's  condition  without  the  gospel. 
They  are  peculiar  to  one  type  of  the  Reformed  faitli  — 
the  pietistic — originating  with  Wesley  and  Whitetield. 
As  to  the  age  of  missions  they  areas  old  as  the  apostles, 
and  as  to  tlieir  being  alien  to  the  spirit  of  the  Reforma- 
tion it  onl}'  sliows  that  the  Reformation  needed  reforming, 
if  it  were  true,  which  it  is  not.  Modern  Protestant  mis- 
sions date  from  the  Reformation. 

When,  if  these  views  are  antiquated,  did  they  become 
so?  They  are  the  views  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  In  whose 
judgment  are  tliese  views  of  the  appropriateness  of  the 
gospel  to  all  narrow  views  ? 

As  Catholicism  denies  the  call  of  the  church  to  mis- 
sionary eftbrt,  rationalism  denies  its  diit//.  Rationalism 
maintains  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  Christians,  that  even 
ii'it  were,  Christianity  is  not  adapted  to  accomplish  the 
desired  result. 

//.  What  do  missionary  results  as  so  far  dereloped  prort 
in  regard  to  Christianity  ? 

i.  The  gospel  message  can  be  carried  to  all  nations. 
The  commission  so  tar  as  it  concerns  the  delivc'^ry  of  the 
message  in  the  speech  that  men  use,  can  be  fulfilled. 

Many  languages  have  first  been  reduced  to  writing 
in  order  to  carry  the  g(>spel. 

A  Danish  writer  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  but  60 
years  ago  translations  had  been  made  only  in  the  [Semitic 
languages,  Greek,  Latin,  Lithuanian,  Celtic  &c.,  while 
no\v  in  almost  every  language  and  dialect.  Dr.  Moffatt 
found  words  among  the  lowest  classes  in  South  Africa 
that  had  had  a  purer  and  better  meaning.  No  language 
of  earth  refuses  to  have  the  story  of  the  cross  told  in  it. 

Philologists  often  have  to  come  to  the  Christian  mis- 
sionary for'information  in  their  field  and  sometimes  only 
to  turn  around  against  the  mission  cause. 


60 

The  question  how  shall  I  preach  the  gospel  is  rightly 
answered  only  when  localized  and  individualized. 

If  the  gospel  is  in  the  heart  a  way  will  he  found  to 
express  it.  You  must  first  have  the  gospel  in  your  own 
heart,  then  find  out  where  among  the  people  the  altar 
"  to  the  unknown  god  "  is. 

2.  The  gospel  message  can  reach  and  move  the  hearts 
of  men  all  the  world  over. 

This  shows  it  isfroniGod.  Thougli  not  co-extensive 
with  the  earth  it  is  broad  enough  to  allow  the  induction. 
Renan  scoffs  at  the  idea  of  disturbing  the  SouthSea  Is- 
landers in  their  simplicity.     A  strange  innocency  ! 

3.  The  gospel  message  when  received  can  produce 
its  legitimate  and  appropriate  fruit  on  every  soil  under 
heaven.  The  gospel  is  full  of  vital  and  regenerating 
power,  and  missionaries  are  encouraged  to  send  it  fuither 
on,  beyond  their  own  stations.  Societies  are  formed 
among  converts.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  how  long  it 
took  Christianity  to  revolutionize  the  German  and  Celtic 
nations.  The  work  of  purifying  is  slow  of  necessity. 
The  cause  for  amazement  is  not  that  it  is  so  slow  but  so 
rapid. 

4.  Secondary  and  secular  results  of  the  reception  of 
the  gospel  message  are  a  boon  whose  equal  cannot  be 
found  in  connection  with  any  other  agency. 

Good  that  culture  never  could  accomplish.  Gospel 
alone  can  be  relied  on  to  produce  endurance  and  per- 
sistent struggles  against  evil.  (So  Prof.  Nitzch  shows.) 
See  Dr.  Ellinwood\s  "  Great  Conquest." 

Objections.  1.  From  scientific  anthropology.  The 
whole  theory  and  practice  of  foreign  missions  rests  on 
false  views  concerning  the  relations  of  human  races. 

Such  persons  hold  to  the  inequality  of  the  human 
races,  frank  enough  to  renounce.  Christianity  with  mis- 
sions. Since  missions  assume  that  God  has  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations,  and  Christianity  also  rests  on  this, 
then  the  overthrow  of  the  one  involves  the  other. 

This  objection,  in  an  unscientific  form,  is  as  old  as 
Celsus;  he  asked,  who  can  believe  it  possible  that  the 
same  religion  is  suited  to  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa? 

2.  It  is  foolish  to  carry  Christianity  before  civiliza- 
tion.    First  civilize  then  carry  the  gospel. 


61 

a.  The  word  "civilize  "  Chriat  failed  to  iiitrudiice  into 
his  great  commission. 

h.  Experience  proves  that  civilization  is  not  neces- 
sary. Among  some  savage  nations  the  gospel  has  niore 
effect,  so  that  these  objectors  tnrn  around  and  say  it  is 
suited  only  for  savages. 

c.  Christianity  is  the  only  etiectual  civilizer.  The 
testimony  of  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed  by 
the  House  of  Commons,  of  learned  Englishmen,  who 
searched  history  for  many  years  aiid  reported  that  there 
never  has  been  a  satisfactory  civilization  apart  from 
Christianity. 

3.  Practically,  Christianity  has  proved  itself  in  con- 
nection with  mission  work,  to  be  ill  adapted  to  heathen 
nations.  They  put  their  heathen  idols  under  tiie  altar. 
The  restraints  of  Christianity  is   killing  off  the  natives. 

4.  Practically  Christianity  has  made  l)ut  little  impres- 
sion on  the  stronger  nations,  viz:  India  and  China. 

Some  time  ago  there  was  some  truth  in  this,  but  noi 
now.  We  should  remember  that  in  China  we  have  but 
one  missionary  to  ever}'  one  and  a  half  million. 

5.  As  compared  witli  some  other  religions,  Christi- 
anity has  shown  greatly  inferior  power  for  impressing 
men,  especially  in  Asia  and  Africa.  True  to  some 
extent — and  this  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  Christi- 
anity which  does  jiot  pander  to  human  depravity. 

6.  Economical  —  Christianity  involves  tremendous 
expense.  A  person  objected  to  the  writer  that  it  cost 
$50,000  to  convert  one  soul  in  India.  It  is  not  true,  for 
facts  show  that  in  proportion  to  the  outlay,  foreign  mis- 
sions are  more  successful  tlian  the  home  work.  But  if 
true,  Christ  set  a  higher  value  than  that  on  a  hunum  soul. 


Finis. 


ANALYSIS  OF  APOLOGETICS. 


PROLEGOMENA. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Prelhnivari/  gucsUoriii. 

1.  Why  do  I  believe  I  an\  a  Christian  ? 

2.  Why  a  Christian  in  belief? 

Answei-  (o  1  lies  (a)  in  past  experience,  (b)  in  present.  Answer  to  2. 
from  (a)  early  education,  (b)  enlightened  choice. 

Reasons  for  Stady  of  Apologetics. 

(a)  Self-respect.  (b)  Loyalty  to  fellow-men.  (c)  For  our  times 
especially,  it  is  the  question  of  the  day.  (d)  Personal  composure  and 
confidence. 

Practiced  Aims  of  Apologetics. 

1.  Justification  and  confession  of  our  faith. 

2.  Better  qualification  to  commend. 

3.  Fuller  confidence  in  defending. 

Definition  of  Apologetics. 

(a)  "That  part  of  Theology  which  vindicates  the  right  of  Theology 
in  general,  and  of  Christian  Theology  in  particular,  to  exist  as  a  science." 
(Partial.)  (b)  "  That  which  sets  forth  the  hi.storial  credentials  of  Chris- 
tianity "  (c)  Science  which  sets  forth  the  principles  according  to  which 
Christianity  is  to  be  defended,  (d)  That  branch  of  Theol.  Science  which 
sets  forth  the  proofs  that  the  claims  of  Christianity  as  a  religion  are 
justified.     Term  Apologetics  ambiguous. 

Relative  Position  of  Apologetics. 

Some  :  In  Practical  Theology.  Others  :  before  Systematic  Theology. 

Literature. 

Specific  Apologetics  for  each  age.     Scientific  and  Practical  Apolo 
getics      Fundamental  Apologetics  and  Christian  Apologetics  proper. 

Kind  of  Evidence. 

Logical  ;  metaphysical ;  historical. 

THESIS  :    That   Christianitg   is   the   true  divinclg  sanc- 
tioned and  authoritative  religion  for  us,  and  for  all  men. 


II. 


CHRISTIANITY    AS    A    RELIGION. 

Christianity  not  tlie  only  reliojioii.  What  is  a  relior- 
ioii  ?     Definition  reached. 

(1)  Etymologically — religio — from  religere,  to  reconsider,  rather 
than  from  rdigare,  to  refiiid.  ©prjiTKeta  from  either  (a)<'paS,  (b)  rpim^  (c) 
9pcu.     O.  T.  gives  no  specific  term. 

(2.)  Historically.     Examine  religions. 

(3.)   Philosophically — by  induction  of  facts. 

Definitions  of  Religion. 

1.   Philosophical. 

'Observance  of  moral  law  as  Divine  ordinance." — (Kant.)  "'Faith 
in  moral  order  of  universe." — (Fichte.)  "A  priori  theory  of  universe." 
— (H.  Spencer. ) 

'2.  Theological. 

"  A  mode  of  knowing  and  worshipping  God.  Relation  of  Revelation 
to  man,  and  of  man  to  it.  '  Relation  of  man  to  superhuman  powers  in 
which  he  believes." 

"  Man's  life  in  personal  communion  with  God." 

"  A  mode  of  knowledge,  thought,  feeling,  action,  which  has  the 
divine  for  object,  ground  and  aim."     (Proper  and  complete). 

Advantages  of  last  defence  (aj  includes  all  particulars,  (b)  recognizes 
divine  as  object,  (c)  general  yet  applicable  to  specific  religions. 

Divisions  of  Prolegomena. 

I.  Phenomenology  of  Religion. 

II.  Psychology. 

III.  Ditierent  theories  of  origin. 

IV.  Criteria. 

V.  Relations  to  morality. 
VI.  Significance. 

I.  Phenomonology  of  Religion. 

1.  Subject  of  Beligion. 

A.  Man — not  other  creatures.  . 

B.  All  men — not  some  only. 

C.  Essential  characteristics  of  man. 

D.  Belongs  to  conscious  voluntary  phases  of  human  life. 

E.  Belongs  to  man  as  moral  agent. 

2.  Object  of  Religion. 

The  Divine.     God  of  the  SS,  not  of  Positivism. 

3.  Actual  Manifestations  of  Religion. 

A.   Phenomena  of  public  worship. 

(1.)  Places  set  apart  to  worship. 
(2.)  Observances  of  worship. 
(3.)  Priesthoods. 


III. 

B.  Phenomena  in  private  life.      IIoiuselKjld  gods— family  worsliii.. 

C.  Creeds  :  —  Philosupliical,     doctrinal,    mytliological,    without  anv 

form. 

D.  The  social  element  in  Religion.     The  world's  reilgion.s. 

4.    T(/pes  of  the  world's  Reiir/ions. 

Principle  of  classification  :  conception  of  the  divine  as  an  object  of 
worship. 

A.     Reugions  of  Naturk. 
(1.)   Noaniijthoiogical. 
(a).   Fetichism. 
(b)'  Shamanism. 
(c).   Element  worship, 
(dj.   Power  worship  in  nature,  and  ancestor  worship. 

(2).  Mythological. 

(a).  Objects  of  worship:  external  nature  personified  and  deified. 
A — Old  Indian  rels.  /i.— Baal,  Astarte,  Moloch-worship.  C.  —  Egyptian 
religion. 

(b).  Human  ideas  personified  aid  deified.  A. — Greek  and  Roman 
religions.      H.  —  Persian  relig.      C. — Old  (jcrman    rel.     J). — Buddhisam. 

A.       Sui'EKNATUKAI.    Rlil.IGIOXS. 

(3).    Siiper-mi/tkolnglcal. 

(a)  Judaism. 

(b)  Christianity. 

(c)  Mohammedanism. 

Differences  between  (a)  and  (b).  (1).  In  fulness  of  divine  inani 
festation.  (2).  In  degree  of  doctrinal  developm>;nt.  {-i).  In  measure 
of  realization  of  intended  results. 

Other  classifications  ;  criteria  ;  Historical  development,  suitable- 
ness, political  influence,  nature  of  worship. 

II.       P.<!YCHOI.OGY    OF    ReI.IGION. 

Preliminary — (a),  spiritual  oneness  of  man.  (b).  Necessity  of 
generalizing  to  cover  all  religions. 

1.  How  many  and  which  fac allies  exercised. 

(a).   Intelligence  :  guard  against  ultra  intellectualism, 

{h).   Emotion  :   but  guard  against  ultra  emotionalism. 

(c).    Will  :  yet  will  not  the  seat  of  religion. 

(d).  Conscience  :  yet  religion  does  not  originate  in  conscience. 

2.  The  order  af  Psychological  development. 

Question  between  Intelligence  and  Emotion.  True  order :  (a). 
Discovery  of  relations  between  man  and  God.  (b).  Recognition  of  feel- 
ings corresponding  to  the  relations. 

Guard  against:   (a).   Theories  tending  to  .Pantheism. 

(b).   Theories  implying  that  feeling  is  cognitive 

(cj.  Theories  ignoring  or  subordinating  either  cognitions  <ir  senti- 
ments in  religion. 

III.       ThEOUIES    of    OlUGIN    OF    RELIGION. 

The  Natural  Development  theory. 

(2).  Atheism.  (2).  Fetichism.  (3).  Nature  worship._^  M).  Sha 
manism.  (5).  Idolatry.  (6).  Principle  worship.  (7).  Theism  and 
Pantheism.     This  unscientific  as  well  as  unscriptural. 


.     IV. 

Herbert  Spencer:  (a).   Man  conies  to  dualism  in  natur*?. 

(6).   To  idea  of  supernatural  in  ghosts. 

{c).   To  Ancestor  worship. 

[d).   Idolatry  and  Fetichism. 

(e).   Animal  and  plant  worship. 

(/).   Worship  of  Deities. 

Specific   Theories. 

A.  Political  Theory. 

B.  Physical  Theory. 

C.  Selfish  Theory. 

I).   Theory  of  primitive  supernatural  revelation. 
E.    Theory  of  Supplemental  Revelation. 

IV.     Criteria  of  Religion. 

(1).    The  traditioiuil  or  prescriptwe  right  of  ani/  religion   to 

exist. 

(2).    Truth  to  Reason. 

{a).  Is  the  system  consistent  in  itself?  (b).  Does  it  harmonize  witli 
the  world's  constitution  ?     (c).   Does  it  meet  the  needs  of  man  ? 

(3).    Truth  to  Moral  Nature. 

Additional  modern  tests. 

(4).   Practical  Test. 

(a).  Effects  on  the  intelligence.  (6).  On  the  emotional  nature,  (c). 
On  .(Esthetical  nature,     {d).  Other  practical  effects. 

(6).  Special  Divine  Attestations. 

Objected  riiat  attestations  are  superffuous,  impossible,  improbable, 
not  sustained  by  evidence. 

(a).   Not  superfluous:  from  history  of  world  and  present  condition. 

(6).  Not  impossible  :  from  Omnipotence  of  God. 
•        (c).  Not  improbable  :  from   Benevolence   of  God  e.vhibited  in   pro- 
visions in  nature. 

V.   Relations  of  Religion  and  Morality. 

1.  Historical. 

{a)  That  there  are  such  relations,  (b)  What  they  are.  (c)  Their 
measure  and  direction. 

2.  Theoretical. 

Define  Religion  and  Morality  in  their  mutual  relation,  according  to 
Martensen.  This  varies  and  so  we  have  Philosophical  (ethics  ;  Theoretical 
ethics  ;  Christian  ethics  ;  Social  ethics  ;  Political  ethics  ;  origin  of  ideas 
(a),  of  duty,  (6).  of  virtue,  (c).  of  supreme  and  subordinate  good. 

What  are  the  Relations  of  M.  and  R.  ? 

6  views. 

A.   one  includes  the  other. 
(1).    Morality  merged  in  religion. 
(2).    Religion  merged  in  morality. 

fi.  (3).  Each  held  distinct  and  essential  and  independent  of  each 
other. 


P.\  ^5'*'i/V"<^'\"ient,il  ami  primary,  vol  one  si.l.oniii.at.-  t..  ll..-  ..ihor 

(4).   Keligioii  tuiulameiUal,  morality  subordinalc. 

(5).    Morality  primary,  religion  secondary. 

D.    (6).  Both  as  essential  and  necessary  to  each:  tliereroie  coordinate. 

Points  of  Agreement  and  Dicen/enne. 
Agueeme.vt. 

(1).    Both  in  having  their  ground  in  human  constiiution. 
('2).    Both  refer  to  external  ohjects  with  real,  valid  ciaims. 

DlI'^FEKEXCES. 

(3).   [n  respect  of  relative  position  of  their  objects. 
(4).   Inqualityoftheirclaim.     Will  of  a  person  in  religion  :      .\l)stract 
right  in   morality. 

3.   Practical  Relations. 

Religion  and  morality  to  supplemont  and  support   each  other. 
VI.     The  SiGxiKii'ANCE  ok  Rei.icion. 

1 .  Of  lohit  consequence  is  it  that  one  should  be  rclicjious  ? 

Completeness  of  manhood  demands  it. 

Causes  of  irreligion. 

(«).  Brutalized  life.  [h).  Indifference,  (c).  Vividness  of  pressure 
of  material  and  secular  interests,  {d).  Positive  disinclination  to  religious 
life.  (e).  Reaction  against  prevalent  abu.ses.  (/).  iiegitimate  logic  of 
false  speculative  reasoning. 

2.  Of  mhai  consequence  that  one  should  be  rightly  religious  f 

There  is  a  right  and  wrong  in  everything  else,  much  more  so  in  re- 
ligion ;  natural  religion  points  to  right  religion. 

CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETICS. 

Christianity  in  Particular. 

Christianity  is  the  system  announced,  established,  provided  for  in 
Scriptures. — Characteristics. 

1.  Christianity  is  a  revealed  religion. 

2.  Christianity  is  a  historical  religion. 

3.  Christianity  is  a  positive  religion. 

4.  Christianity  is  a  rational  religion. 

5.  Christianity  is  an  ethical  religion. 

6.  Christianity  is  a  world's  religion. 

7.  Christianity  distinctly  adapted  to  special  conditions. 

8.  Christianity  claims  a  Personal  Founder  in  a  special  sense. 

9.  Christianity  combines  its  doctrinal  and  vital  elements. 

10.  Christianity  is  an  exclusive  religion. 

11.  Christianity  is  the  final  religion. 

Objections. 

(1).  God  has  not  exhausted  his  resources.  (2).  Disparaging  fn  our- 
selves. Ans. — (a)  All  rightful  antecedents  point  to  Christianity  ;  it  and 
no  successor,  (b)  It  reaches  the  utmost  wants  of  men.  (c)  Brought 
to  the  world  by  the  Son  of  God.     Who  sliall  bring  a  better  religion. 


YI. 

EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 

General  Considerations  on  Emdence. 

1.  Is  the  establishment  of  the  proof  of  Christianity  within  the  reach 
of  evidence?  No  intrinsic  difficulty  in  God's  revealing  or  man's  appre- 
hending revelation. 

2.  What  kind  of  evidence  will  establish  it?  There  are  tlnree  kinds: 
(a)  Intuitive  ;  {h)  Demonstrative  ;  (c)  Experiential,  probable  or  moral 
evidence. 

Last  differs  from  others  (1).  In  depending  on  experience.  (2)  Ad- 
mitting of  degrees  of  conclusiveness.  (8).  Involving  balancing  of  con- 
trary proofs.      (4).   Involving  respon.?ibility. 

Christianity  not  to  be  known  intuitively  as  demonstrating  therefore 
established  by  experimental  evidence.  Sources  of  this  :  (a)  Conscious 
ness.  [b]  'i'he  Senses.  (c)  Memory.  (d)  Testimony.  Chief  source 
of  evidence  for  Christianity  must  be  Testimony.  Testimony  is  received 
by  a  law  of  our  nature  not  from  exiierience.  Criteria  of  a  historical 
.assertion,  (a)  That  it  alone  explains  the  report,  [b^  That  it  is  what 
should  be  expected,  (c)  To  be  tested  by  rules  of  conditional  or  contin- 
gent influences.    (ITeberweg). 

Various  hypotheses  tenable  to  account  for  historical  assertions,  (a). 
That  the  event  did  happen  and  was  olxserved.  (b).  That  the  observation 
influenced  by  false  apprehension,  (c).  That  report  influenced  by  false 
apprehension,  (d).  Recollection  untrue.  [e).  Imagination  influenced 
transmitors.  {f).  Recorded  in  spirit  and  for  purpse  of  romance,  [g). 
Purpo.se  to  deceive. 

Relatice  value  of  kinds  of  testimoni/. 

(1).  Eye  witness  trustworthy  provided  he  has  (a),  competence,  (6). 
opportunity  and  (c).  character.  Many  eye  witnesses  better  than  one  wlien 
(1 ).  they  are  independent.  (2).  Not  influenced  by  same  deception.  (3). 
Not  aff"ected  by  same  prejudice. 

(2).  Secondary  witnesses  judged  partly  by 'same  tests  but  chiefly  by 
their  relations  to  oi'iginal  eye  witnesses. 

(3).  Later  witnesses  untrustworthy  when  (o),  there  is  a  personal  in- 
terest, (6),  a  lack  of  competence,  opportunity  or  character. 

RAWLINSONS  CANONS. 

I.  Record  by  contemporary  and  credible  witness  is  of  highest  histori- 
cal credibility. 

II.  Record  by  one  reasonably  supposed  to  have  obtained  directly 
from  those  who  witnessed  is  of  second  degree  of  historical  credibility. 

III.  Record  by  later  writers  source  of  information  being  chiefly 
tradition  if  event  is  of  nature  of  public  transaction  notorious  and  afl"ected 
propriety  of  national  life  it  is  probably  true  at  lea.^t  in  general  outline. 

IV.  Tradition  of  one  race  corroborated  by  another  especially  distant 
or  hostile,  constitutes  third  degree  of  credibility  less  than  first  class  of  evi- 
dence and  nearly  equal  to  second. 

3.    What  degree  of  assurance  can  moral  evidence  give  ? 

a.  Not  philosophical  certitude,  b.  But  certitude  in  moral  or  popular 
sense. 

Note.  Distinction  between  subjective  and  objective  certitude  and  sub- 
jective and  objective  evidence. 

c  Moral  evidence  only  void,  entailing  moral  responsibility. 


VII. 

4.  What  mental   comHtiona   ncressan/   to   i'Htini,tt!n,i    moral 

evidence  ? 

(a).  Attention.  (6).  Rffort  to  apprel.en.l.  (c).  Vigilanc*.,  to  L-uard 
ngamst  perver.sion.      (d).   Kcjuity.  8""i>« 

5.  What  moral  conditiovs    essential   to    treatnu-iil  of  ,„(,rot 

evidence  ? 

ia)  Apprehension  of  moral  responsiljilitv.  (/>i  Uiiniility  (c) 
Prayerfiilness,  even  in  the  li-ht  of  nature  aluiie.  (,/)  W'ilJiimnV.ss  to 
abide  by  result. 

6.  What   kind   of  moral  eridencr  offered  in   favor  o/  Christi- 

auiti/  ? 

Old  clas.sification  :    ia)     Internal.      (/;)    External.     kJ   Collateral. 
New  classification  : 

A.  Historical. 

B.  Philosophical. 

HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES. 

1.    Nature, md  claim  of  ChristiamDj  as  a  Historical  Religion. 

2    Reasons  for  first  consider inc/  Historical   Ecidence. 

(1).  The  idea  of  Christianity  came  to  the  world  historically. 
(2).   Many  elements  in  idea  are  historical  facts. 

(3).  Philosophical  argument  more  earnestly  conducted  after  this 
establishment  of  historical  truth. 

(4)   Christianity  an  actual  reality  ;   historical  fact  to  be  explained. 
(5.)  Christianity  suffers  where  historical  claims  are  not  urged. 

8.  Historical  ChHstianity  as  a  fact  to  be  accounted  for. 

Christianity  e.-^ists  and  has  existed.  Historical  existence  of  Christi- 
anity is  not  disputed.  Paul's  four  epistles,  (Rom..  (Jal.,  I  and  H  Cor.) 
admitted.  Facts  alluded  to  :  How  came  these  to  be  believed  ?  Five  indis- 
putable facts. 

(a).  That  in  25  A.  D.,  Christian  society  had  no  existence. 

(6).  In  40  A.  D.,  it  was  in  vigorous  growth 

(c).  It  was  founded  by  Jesus  Christ. 

(d)  Crucifixion  by  Roman  governor  caused  a  collapse  in  this  society. 

(e)  An  event  taking  place  soon  after  imparted  new  life. 

These  facts  were  abundantly  verifiable  :  Late  sources  of  informa- 
tion. (1).  Recorded  personal  ol)serralion  (2)  oral  tradition,  (8)  written 
documents,  (4)  monumental  institutions,  observances  and  emblems,  (5) 
significant  charges  and  omissions. 

HypotJieses  propounded  to  account  for  these  facts. 

A.  That  of  their  reality. 

B.  Other  hypotheses,  viz  :  1.  Legendary.  2.  Mythical.  3.  Inno- 
cent deception.     4.   Willful  deception, 

1.   Legendary   Hypothesis. 


Vtll. 

Historical  belief  rests  to  great  extent  on  vague,  unverified  body  of 
legends.  Argument:  Fact  that  there  is  in  every  people  a  body  of  oral 
lecends.  Answer:  Christianity  not  based  on  oral  statements  but  written 
documents.  Paul,  10  years  after  death  of  Christ,  could  not  have  used 
legends  as  he  does  facts  of  Christianity. 

2.  Mythical  Hypothesis 

Must  (a)  dispose  of  gospel  narrative,  (b)  of  gospel  history  in  narra- 
tive (c)  of  character  of  Christ. 

In  regard  to  (a)  the  theory  is  unsatisfactory.  (1).  Cannot  account 
for  myths. 

{a.)  Assumption  that  historical  movements  excite  myth-making 
spirit. 

(b)  Christianity  beginning  where,  when  and  as  it  did  not  call  forth 
myth-mai\ing. 

(c)  Apocryphal  books  do  not  show  this  tendency. 

(d)  Where  did  Christ's  followers  get  such  ideas  as  made  the  germ  of 
the  alleged  myths. 

(e)  After  myths  had  been  created,  there  would  be  a  difficulty  to  im- 
pose them. 

(2).  The  myths  cannot  account  for  the  facts.  The  change  wrought 
in  ideas  of  Messiah. 

3,  Tlie  hypotheses  of  deception. 

.    (1).    Unconscious  deception. 

(2).   Wilful  deception.  _  _    • 

(a).  So  far  as  refers  to  Christ.  Unconscious  deception;  reconciliation 
to  facts  is  impossible.     Wilful  deception  also. 

(b).  So  far  as  it  refers  to  Apostles  in  either  case  the  conduct  of  the 
men  is  to  be  accounted  for  ;  the  difficulties  in  their  way  ;  the  character, 
circumstances,  marvelous  appearance  of  honesty. 

Apply  these  hypotheses  to  the  resurrection.  The  hypothesis  of  re- 
ality accounts  for:  (1).  The  narrative.  (2).  The  character  and  con- 
duct of  first  disciples.     (3).  The  rise  of  Christianity.  • 

(a).  The  theory  of  legend  or  myth  cannot  account  for  when,  where 
and  how  the  narrative  arose  and  how  it  supplanted  the  original  and  true 
record  without  leaving  traces  of  the  struggle. 

(6).  The  theories  of  deception,  that  of  designed  deception  is  too 
violent  and  therefore  universally  abandoned  ;  that  of  unconscious  decep- 
tion assumes  either,  (1).  that  the  disciples  mistook  somebody  else  for 
Christ  for  a  long  time  or  (2).  that  they  mistook  the  hallucination,  of  their 
imaginations.  This  last  is  the  favorite.  Assumes  a  greater  miracle  than 
that  of  the  resurrection. 

THE    CHRISTIAN    SCRIPTURES, 

1.  The  SS.  as  a  source  of  information  concerning  Christianity. 

(1).  They  are  not  the  only  source  of  information. 

(2).   They  are  not  riiereiy  a  source  of  information. 

(3).  Christianity  is  closely  identified  with  them. 

(4).  Decision  in  regard  to  them  can't  be  a  matter  of  indifiference. 

(5).  They  have  on  legal  principles  a  presumptive  value. 

2.  Historical  criticism  in  relation  to  the  Christian  SS. 

Christian  SS.  invite  criticism.  Christians  mnst  ascertain  relations  of 
material  to  authorship  of  SS.     Four  questions. 


IX. 

A.  Whetl.or  material  is  what  iU-Iai..,s  to  he  ;   qvei^lhm  of  „ull,eu(inl„ 

B.  het  her  ,t  ,s  ,n  nnchancrod  fon,.  ;  .jnesliJn  „r  i„e„ru', 

C  \\hetl.erwlien  produce.l  it  ,1h1  an.l  cai.  ,i;iv,.  what  i"i  claims  f. 
establish  ;  qnextion  of  correctness. 

I).  Whether  it  contains  all  the  elements  of  ki.owle(hro  :  miesUon  of 
completeness.  "    >   y  <  ■■  "  "y 

Genuineness,  authenticity,  integrity.  cnMlihiiity  are  ainhig.u.ns  terms  • 
use  three,  Authenticity,  Integrity.  Credibility.  Th.-y  are  intoneiat.d  an. 
mutually  helpful. 

I.       THE    i\.    T.    ('AXON. 

1.  A/.   "  Collection  of  books  wliicli  constitutes  oi-i<;inal 

written  rule  of  Clirisiian  faith."     (Westeott). 

2.  Authorship. 

{\).  By  wlioni  was  this  collection  made.  rl\.  By  wIkud  invested 
wiih  its  authority. 

In  answer  to  (1 ). 

(a).   The  church,  no  individual. 

(b).   'I'he  church  as  a  whole. 

(c).  The  clinreh  gradually. 

(d).  The  church  guided  by  instinct,  not  Holy  (Jhost. 

In  answer  to  (2). 

Not  the  church,  for  it  could  not  have  created  an  authority  over  itself, 
but  intrinsic— the  authority  grows  out  of  nature  of  book. 

On  what  principle  credit  of  canonical  authority  given  to  these  book, 
we  learn  : 

(1).    From  language  used  by  early  church  in  regard  to  books  accepted. 

(2).   From  language  in  regard  to  doubtful  books. 

(3).  The  way  in  which  complete  canon  was  treated.  Elements  re- 
cognized, (a),  human;  apostolic  authorship,  (b).  divine  :  inspiration  of 
Holy  Ghost. 

3.  Relations  of  JY.  T.  to  0.  T.  canon. 

{a).  Attitude  of  early  church  towards  0.  T.  determined  by  that  of 
Christ  and  apostles. 

[b).  Why  did  church  need  other  SS. 

(1).  0.  T.  predictions  point  to  them  :  proof  and  full  benelit  must  be 
used  for  the  church  and  world. 

(2).  .lesus  Christ  was  the  promised  Messiah,  therefore  his  sayings 
acquired  like  authority  as  0.  T. 

(3).   Apostolic  words  were  regarded  as  authorized  by  Christ. 

(4).  Practical  necessities,  [a).  Habit  of  reading  in  public  worship. 
(6).  Authoritative  standard  caused  early  writing  down  of  the  N.  T. 

4.  The  Composition  of  Canon. 

A  work  of  time  necessarily.  Testimony  to  it  by  apostolic  fathers 
120-190  Greek  apologists.      Early  versions.      Heretics. 

6.    Objections  to  the  Composition  of  Canon. 

The  books  were  regarded  as  differing  in  value  in  early  church  during 
3d  and  4th  centuries.  Ans.  (a).  The  methods  of  the  early  church  not 
those  of  critical  schools.  (6).  The  spirit  of  the  early  church  ditferent. 
(c).   The  difference  admits  of  easy  explanations. 


X. 


THE    AUTHENTICITY    OF    N.    T.    SCRIPTURES. 

1.  At  the  end  of  2d  century  there  were  in  possession  of  early  church 
books,  bearing  names  of  our  scriptures. 

2.  [dentity  determined  by  i\ISS.  early  M5S.  and  citations. 

8.   Inquiry:    In   what  sense  and  with  what  reason  church   attributed 
them  to  apostles. 

Considerations  confirming  Judgment  of  Church. 

Out  of  27   books   17   bear  name  of  author,   in  substance  of  writing, 
not  merely  title. 

A.  Not   merely  a   literary  satisfaction    to   church  but  a  necessity  to 
have  SS. 

B.  These  documents  transcribed  and  interchanged  among  churches 
by  apostolic  authority. 

C.  Different  sections  of  church  ai^ree  in  result. 

D.  As  a  literary  phenomenon  forgery  is    here  unnatural. 
B.    Morally  imprjl)able  that  any  could  forge  them. 

F.   Negative:   Exposure  would  have  been  easy. 

INTEGRITY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SS. 

1.  Extenial  meaii.s  of  a.-^cei-taiuing  Integrity. 

(a,  MSS.  (6)  VSS.   (c)   Citations. 

2.  Internal . 

(I).  B'itness  of  document  to  alleged  source.  (2).  Harmony  of  sub- 
ject, style  to  author.  (8).  Presence  or  absence  of  connecting  links 
between  parts  admitted  to  be  authentic,  and  doubtful  pafts. 

CllEniClLlTY   OK   N.    T.    SS. 
Preliminary:    1.    Lapse  of  time  does  not  affect  credibility.     2.   Cred. 
includes  element   of  personal    trust.      Attesting   and    Presumptive  credi- 
bility. 

1.  Attesting  Proofs. 

(a).   Many  things  assertei  in  N.  T.  are  demonstrable  by  reason. 

(6).   By  results  which  follow  their  reception. 

(c).   By  external  independent  evidence. 

{(i).  Most  important  attestation  that  the  historical  parts  of  N.  T.  at 
least  have  been  received  by  larg^  numbers  of  man  who  were  satisfied  of 
their  truth. 

2.  Presumptive  Credibility . 

A.  Illustrated  by  considerations  drawn  from  facts  recorded. 
(1).   They  were  accessible  to  scrutiny. 

(2).  They  were  numerous. 

(3).   They  were  minutely  described. 

(4).   Invited  scrutiny  by  extraordinary  nature. 

B.  Confirmed  by  considerations  of  circumstances  and  witnesses. 
(1).    Witness  numerous  and  diverse. 

(2).   Apparently  far  removed  from  deceit  in  spirit. 
(8).   No  cause  whatever   why  ihey  should    further   such  a  cause  by 
false  means. 

C.  Utterly  impossible  that  the  central  figure  can  be  a  fabriciition. 

D.  Co-existence  of  harmony  in  representation,  and  clear  signs  of  indi- 
viduality in  recorders. 


XI. 

The  0.  T.  SfRiPTi'itEs. 

(11.  Christianity  nrefls  llip  0.  'J'.  FS..  in  oidor  l«  iindrrslniid  ila 
antecedents.  (2).  Ihe  0.  T.  Scriiituie.'*  are  pieparatory  and  provisional. 
(3).      Christ  and  the  Apostles  command  their  use. 

1.  Canon  of  0.  T.  :  CdiijoKd  of  law.  5  looks;  I'rcj  luls  and 
Historical  books  written  by  pro)  hels,  21  locks;  Haj!irj;iaj  ha.  V,\  liookn. 

Two  views  held  :  (1).  ].oo.«er  Prot.  view  ;  (2).  Hi  man  Caiholic  vipw. 
Both  opposed  to  evangelical  view. 

(1).   Not  all  canonical  books  ofO.  T.  are  quoted  oralhided  to  in  N.  T. 

A.  Argiimevt for  looser  view. 

Ans:  (a).  No  occasion  to  quote  all.  \h).  Ab.MiKe  of  (iinMsilion 
does  not  prove  absence  from  canon. 

(2).  Express  citations  from  other  writings  by  .sime  formulas.  Ann  : 
Cannot  be  identified  ;  probably  ivhslaiitial  references  to  0.  T 

(3).  References  to  Apocryphal  books  and  inHuence  of  Apocrypha,  on 
N.  T.  books.  Ans:  The  first  unsubstantiated;  the  second  admilled 
proves  nothing. 

B.  Arguments  for  Catholic  via/'. 

{a).   A  tradition  in  the  church  traced  to  Apostles. 
(6).   Concur!  ent  belief  of  Greek  and  Latin  churches. 
(c).   The  authority  of  the  Roman  church. 

Measons  for  vni-appearavce  of  books  in  envoiK 

(1).  Some  of  them  had  not  appe^ired  at  close  of  Jewish  canon. 

(2).  Others  had  not  come  to  knowledge  of  Jews  after  Babyi-  fitp 
tivity. 

(3).  Synagogue  had  iioi  enough  information  to  decide. 

(J.  Reasons  for  rejecting  Jipocrgpha. 

1.  Confessed  absence  of  Prophetic  element. 

2.  Deterioration  in  poetic  dignity  and  power. 

3.  In  historical  parts. 

(a).   Manifest  presence  of  fiction. 
(b).   Assumption  of  false  names  to  give  weight. 
(c).  Incorporation  of  forged  documents. 
(d).   Gross  historical  inaccuracies. 

4.  In  doctrine,  subservience  to  technical  Judaism. 

2.  The  Authenticity  of  0.  T.  Canon. 

(1).   General  internal  evidences. 

A.  A  marked  congruity  between  authorship  and  siil)jecl.s  treated. 

B.  Characteristics  of  style  in  many  instances. 

C.  The  general  spirit  is  authentic- 

D.  Parallel  accounts  within  them. 
(2).  External  evidences. 

A.  Faith  of  Jews. 

B.  Allusions  by  Christ  and  apostles. 

3.  The  Grcdibilit;i  of  0.  T.  Scriptures. 

(1).   Historical  facts  of  0.  T.  are  connected  with  divine  ?-ommuinra- 

tions.  .  .  ..         ,.,  •,-. 

(2).  Many  signs  of  authenticity  are  signs  o(  credil)il«ly. 

(3).  External  corroborations. 

(a).  In  Jewish  observances. 


XII. 

(b).  The  existence  and  some  forms  of  Christianity. 

(c).   Foreign  and  secular  sources  of  information. 

(4).   Inspiration. 

E.xtent  cf  credibility  :   positions. 

(a).    Limited  to  mntters  of  revelation. 

(b).  To  greater  iiistorical  statements  connected  with  revelation. 

(c).  That  it  covers  the  whole  of  these  books. 

4.  Historical  Difficalties. 

(1).  Contains  impossibilities  :   miracles. 

{'!).  Contradictions. 

(3).  Faulty  ciironology. 

(4).  Exaggerations  and  extravagance. 

Historical  Evidexces. 

I.    The  Scriptures  themselces. 
II.    Jesus  Christ  as  delineated  in  the  Scriptares. 
Ill    The  Miracles  therein  recorded. 
IV.    Prophecies  inith  declared  or  demonstrable  fulfilment. 
V.     The  Results  of  Christianifi/. 

I.       THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    TIIK    SS. 

Partly  negative,  partly  positive. 
General  characteristics. 

A.  The  general  theme  and  way  in  which  it  is  presented  show  the  SS. 
to  be  of  divine  origin. 

B.  The  aim  and  the  way  in  which  it  is  accomplished  are  proof  of 
divine  origin. 

C.  Tiieir  unity  considered  in  connection  with  progressive  develop- 
ment and  ]iroduction. 

D.  Comprehensiveness  in  themes,  and  subordination  of  individual 
themes  to  one  subject. 

E.  Provisions  made  for  promoting  religious  interest  of  every  kind. 

II.    JESUS  CHRIST  DELINEATED  IN    THE  N.  T. 

1.  Look  at  the  delineation  :   it  is  not  human. 
(a).  The  delineation  must  have  had  a  subject. 
(6).   Divine  power  seen  in  delineation  of  subject. 

2.  The  person  predicted  as  Christ  proves  the  system  divine. 

(a).  The  correspondence  between  predicted  and  real  Christ  is  one 
element  in  this  convincing  evidence. 

(b).  The  unique  nature  and  charncter  of  Christ  is  nothing  less  than 
divinely  moulded  and  divinely  evidential. 

III.    PROPHECY. 

Prophecy  classed  as  an  external  evidence  of  Christianity.  Compare 
external  and  internal  evidence. 

1.  'J'he  meaning  of  jirophecy  in  Apologetics. 

2.  The  occurrence  of  predicted  prophecy  in  0.  T.  and  N.  T.  fact 
and  its  purpose. 

3.  The  condition  of  validity :  proof  from  alleged  prophecy. 


XIII. 

(a).  The  real  futurity  of  event. 

[b).   Event  beyond  conjecture. 

(c).   Subsequent  occurrence  as  specifically  foretold. 

id).  Must  not  involve  collusion  between  persons  forelellinp  and  those 
accompiislMiio;  it. 

(e).   Obvious  design  necessary. 

{/).  Blending  of  vagueness  with  precision. 
4.   Other  uses   of  predictive   prophecy  besides  evidential,  in  regard  to 
Christianity  specially. 

(a).   To  give  certain  signs  of  Messiah. 

(6j.   To  keep  alive  tiie  belief  in  fujtilment. 

(c))  To  arouse  a  divine  expectation. 

5.  To  whom  would  predictive  prophecy  carry  its  evidential  message. 
Ans  :   To  tiiose  who  knew  fiiifilment. 

G.  What  truths  involved  and  emphasized  by  each  instance  of  authen- 
icated  prophecy  ? 

(a).   God's  immutability,  omniscience,  power,  &c. 

(b).   His  general  providential  government  of  world. 

(c. )    His  specific  iirovideuce. 

{d).  A  specific  design  to  accredited  agent. 

(e).   Things  predicted  usually  have  peculiar  place  in  God's  regard. 

7.   The  special  bearing  of  prophecy  on  Chiistianity. 

IV.     MIRACLIiS. 

Three  terms  designate  them  in  SS. 
Design  :   To  accredit  those  who  wrought  tiiem. 

Questions:  1.  Are  they  possible  ?  2.  Probable?  3.  Credible''  4. 
Is  conclusion  drawn  from  them  warranted? 

1.  Posf>ihU'itii  of  Miracles. 

Def.    Hodge's.      How  ascribe  miracles  to  God  ? 
(1).    By  amount  and  quality  of  power  displayed. 
(2).  By  purpose  or  wisdom  shown. 
Are  they  jiossible  ? 

a.  Wholly  within  reach  of  original  omuipoteucc. 

b.  God  did  not  limit  his  original  omnipotence. 

c.  God's  immutability  does  not  render  impossible. 

d.  God's  omniscience  does  not  interfere. 

e.  Uniformity  of  nature  not  consistent. 

f.  Created  things  are  not  inimutable. 

2.  ProkibiUly  of  Miracles. 

Calculated  to  do  good.     Communications  from  God  justify  them. 

3.  Crcdihilitt/  of  Jliracles. 

If  not  impossible  or  improbable  they  arc  credible. 

Question:  Are  witnesses  credible?  Ans.  In  cases  of  Christian 
miracles,  hundreds  of  witnesses,  could  they  have  been  deceived. 

Objection.  'J'estimony  could  not  decide  in  such  a  case.  Ans.  More 
improbable  that  testimony  is  false,  than  that  the  miracles  occurred. 

4.  Evidential  Bearing:  Credit  to  iiiesseugcr  or  dispensation  to 
which  he  belongs.  Obj.  1.  That  phenom.  can't  prove  .spiritual  truths. 
Ans.  Not  claimed  that  something  is  made  true  but  divine  mis.sion  at- 
tested. Obj.  2.  Alleged  miracles  were  not  convinciiig  to  those  who  saw 
them.     Ans.   Moral  evidence  implies  possibility  of  disbelieving 


XIV. 


V.       RESULTS     OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Earliest  results  proof  of  divine  origin.  Examine  1.  Extent.  2. 
Significance  and  3.  Utter  disproportion  of"  results  to  terrestrial  agencies 
employed  in  bringing  them  about.  Each  of  these  can  be  considered  in 
relation  to. 

1.  Facts  concerning  propagation. 

2.  Intellectual  influence  of  Christianity. 

3.  Facts  connected  with  moral  and  social  influence  of  Christianity. 


XV, 


ERRATA. 

Apologetie.1. 

Page  87,  line  32:    For  "desire'"  read  "'divine.'' 

Page  89.  line  26:   For  "disposed  ".read  "  indisposed." 

Page  48,  line  1  :     For  "  confines"  read  "  conil)ines." 

Page  49,  line  27  :    For  "  Experimental,"  read  "  E.vperientiui." 

Page  81,  line  20,  ef  seq  :  For  "attested,"  read   "attesting." 

Page  Uo.  line  (i :     For  "  Joseplms  23i')0,"'  read  "  22i;:')." 

Page  108,  line  40:   For  "  Presenfe,"  read  "  Pressens^." 

Page  109,  line  39  :  Read  "  Semen  eat  sanguis.'' 

Page  101,  line  13  :   For  colon  after  "  validity,"  read  "  of." 

Page  101,  line  41  :    For  "proportional,"  re:id  "  iiroportioned.' 

Ethics. 

Page  4,  line  2o :    For  "  wos,"  read  "  vinx." 
Page  18,  line  1  :    For  "same."   read  "some." 
Page  31,  line  22:   For  "fallen,"  road  "  nnfallen." 
Page  33,  line  24  :    For  "  Blakie,"  read  "  BUcUie." 
Page  33,  line  36  :  for  "  Sharp,"  read  "  Sliairp." 
Page  40.  line  9:   E'or  "  Newton,"  read  "  Newman." 
Page  44,  line  12:  Insert  "  Christianity  "  at  end  of  line. 
Page  47,  line  37  :  For  "  Hinnal,"  read  "  Hennell." 
Page  48,  line  38  :   For  "  importance,"  read  "  impotence." 
Page  48,  line  39  :   For  "  detracts."  read  "  distracts." 
Page  50,  line  2  :     Read  "  Christianity  is,"  at  end  of  line. 
Page  51,  line  35:    For  "work,"  read  "worth." 
Page  54,  line  28:   Insert  (c)  for  notation. 
Page  56,  line  27  :    tor  "  Europeans,"  road  "  Emperor." 
Page  57,  line  28  :   After  "  the  work,"  insert  "  is." 
On  Page   47,    the  sentence    "The   moral    results."  Ac. .  should  be  iu 
small  cap.  heading  as  on  page  44. 


DATE  DUE 

^^il.ljM 

i 

•«llW"ff*? 

"■■•^ 

' 

J««»***^ 

^^i^^mm 

- 

(-.-  ^^_^^^ 

GAYLORD 

PRJNTED  IN  U.S. A 

